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

[Darth Tater]

2 hours ago, RVAskins said:

Jo Gibbs showed that you don't have to have the most talented QB's to win a Super Bowl (Theismann, Rypien, Williams). What you need is a solid QB, a good coaching staff and players who don't make a lot of mental errors.

Joe Gibbs showed that being stacked with good talent is better than better than focusing on a couple of elites surrounded by mediocrity.  On average, a Gibbs team had more talent than his opponents.  Theismann was a talent who no one ever really worked on until Gibbs.  From 1982-1984, he was one of the best at the position.  Williams was a large part of the reason that Tampa competitive (main reason was its defense).  He was very good but injuries and racial issues kept him down.  He was one of the best deep ball throwers you'll ever see.  Ryp was drafted in 1986 and did not make the active squad till 1988 but he was on IR during a time when you could use the IR to develop players.  Further, Joe Gibbs was an exception to the rule, at best.  There are few dynasties that have ever not had a HOF QB attached.  Brown had Graham, Lombardi had Starr, Landry had Staubach.  Today Belichick has Brady. There are also several multi-ring QBs who played for multiple coaches.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

35 minutes ago, Burgold said:

At the same time, great QBs still need a team. Drew Brees should probably have more than one. So should Aaron Rodgers. John Elway would have never gotten any until they finally gave him a running game and a D.

 

Very good point and great examples...

 

I think a great QB makes you relevant year in and year out, but Flacco has won as many Super Bowls as Rodgers. 

[Est.1974]

So Kirk is saying that's it's out of his hands and that its up to the the Redskins to decide on the direction it wishes to take.

 

That in itself tells you Kirk has no idea what Scots intentions are. That can't be a good sign to a player heading into FA.

 

The odds are in favour of Kirk leaving IMO.

[Burgold]

3 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

So Kirk is saying that's it's out of his hands and that its up to the the Redskins to decide on the direction it wishes to take.

That's bull. Kirk has a lot of power in his hands. He controls what his side demands. If he wants this done. It gets done.

 

I have nothing against Kirk trying to maximize his contract, but it's laughable to pretend he doesn't have a huge say on what happens. If he directs his agent to settle for a mere 20 million a year average or even 18 his family will never want for anything and the contract will have been signed yesterday. 

[DM72]

7 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

So Kirk is saying that's it's out of his hands and that its up to the the Redskins to decide on the direction it wishes to take.

 

That in itself tells you Kirk has no idea what Scots intentions are. That can't be a good sign to a player heading into FA.

 

The odds are in favour of Kirk leaving IMO.

 

And if I read it right, he did not say one time that he wants to finish his career in Washington. They usually give their current team the benefit of the doubt. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

1 minute ago, Burgold said:

That's bull. Kirk has a lot of power in his hands. He controls what his side demands. If he wants this done. It gets done.

 

I have nothing against Kirk trying to maximize his contract, but it's laughable to pretend he doesn't have a huge say on what happens. If he directs his agent to settle for a mere 20 million a year average or even 18 his family will never want for anything and the contract will have been signed yesterday. 

Though technically correct, most players really don't have that option. It's not because he NEEDS the extra $6-7M per season, but every contract sets a precedent for the players that come after. There's a lot of pressure to demand at least market value for those reasons. 

[Burgold]

Just now, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Though technically correct, most players really don't have that option. It's not because he NEEDS the extra $6-7M per season, but every contract sets a precedent for the players that come after. There's a lot of pressure to demand at least market value for those reasons. 

Oh, I don't think he should do it. I just call BS on him saying he has no power in the negotiation and everything is in Scott's hands. That's just passive aggressive garbage.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

1 minute ago, Burgold said:

Oh, I don't think he should do it. I just call BS on him saying he has no power in the negotiation and everything is in Scott's hands. That's just passive aggressive garbage.

 

Well, I agree with you there. But even on his side of the negotiation, there isn't all that much wiggle room. 

[bobandweave]

1 hour ago, drowland said:

 

By refuse to sign it I think Schefter is saying he could hold off until July to sign it.  That's what most players do when they're franchised.  That's what Norman was doing last year when Carolina cut bait.  You're right, they won't walk away from the money and will eventually sign it.  But they don't have to play nice like Cousins did last year and sign it right away and take part in all the offseason programs, OTAs and minicamps.  If tagged again it wouldn't surprise me at all if Cousins holds off on signing it.  He's got the leverage to force their hand.  And with him being the QB that can negatively impact the offseason if Cousins were not to report until TC.  

 

Schefter was asked that question you raised and was clear he believes that Kirk may not play this year opting to force us to release him. Not that he won't sign it until July, he was saying there is a "possibility" he will never sign a franchise tag with us which being honest is a possibility. It's as possible as someone seeing my posts here and offering me a coordinator job, possible but very highly unlikely. This sort of nonsense from Schefter seems to be in all of his sayings about Kirk the past 18 months, I don't believe based on what I've seen that Kirk is as disgruntled with the team as he does but who knows, you can't ever eliminate possibilities I guess

[Burgold]

Nah, there we disagree. Mind you, if it were me... I'd probably try to gouge them for all I was worth too, but ultimately I do have some latitude as to what that means. I could go up to them and say... Joe Montana was the best QB in NFL history. I'll be content if you give me what Montana got inflation adjusted. 

 

I'd be an idiot for doing it, my peers might hate me for doing it, the Union might write me a dirty letter, but if that's what I wanted to do I could.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

5 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Nah, there we disagree. Mind you, if it were me... I'd probably try to gouge them for all I was worth too, but ultimately I do have some latitude as to what that means. I could go up to them and say... Joe Montana was the best QB in NFL history. I'll be content if you give me what Montana got inflation adjusted. 

 

I'd be an idiot for doing it, my peers might hate me for doing it, the Union might write me a dirty letter, but if that's what I wanted to do I could.

 

I think we agree. I'm not debating if you had the legal ability to do so. Of course you do. It's just much easier said than done given the reasons in your final sentence. The NFLPU would be annoyed, you'd be hanging your fraternity of players out to dry, etc. 

[Est.1974]

11 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Well, I agree with you there. But even on his side of the negotiation, there isn't all that much wiggle room. 

I agree, the deal required to keep him here speaks for itself. It's either on or it isn't.

[Est.1974]

18 minutes ago, Burgold said:

That's bull. Kirk has a lot of power in his hands. He controls what his side demands. If he wants this done. It gets done.

 

I have nothing against Kirk trying to maximize his contract, but it's laughable to pretend he doesn't have a huge say on what happens. If he directs his agent to settle for a mere 20 million a year average or even 18 his family will never want for anything and the contract will have been signed yesterday. 

 

Bruce Allens comments and Kirks comments display a clear and distinct disconnect between both sides. It indicates a stand off. Can't see any good news in that, the deal required to keep him is what it is, don't need to posture, isn't it obvious what it's going to take to keep him. 

 

I dont blame Kirk. Would love to here Scots view, although I think it might be self explanatory by its omission to date.

[Burgold]

Just now, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

Bruce Allens comments and Kirks comments display a clear and distinct disconnect between both sides. It indicates a stand off. Can't see any good news in that, the deal required to keep him is what it is, don't need to posture, isn't it obvious what it's going to take to keep him. 

 

I dont blame Kirk. Would love to here Scots view, although I think it might be self explanatory by its omission to date.

I agree about the standoff and the displeasure especially from Kirk's POV. I could be wrong, but he seems offended or upset with the process. I don't want to hear from Scott personally. I don't think we should be negotiating through the press. The one thing I fault the 'skins on if true is that they should have had an offer sent to him/his people already. In fact, they should have had it on their table the second they were contractually allowed to.

 

There's no reason to make him stew. Beginning the process immediately would have been a show of love and intention. "You are first on our plate, Kirk!" Waiting makes an insecure guy even more insecure which might be good for negotiations on one hand, but it makes it terrible when that insecure guy is negotiating from a position of superior power and leverage.

[RabidFan]

2 hours ago, Burgold said:

Strangely, statements like Bruce's make me less confident that a deal will get done. I hope Cousins is ours. If not, I hope the compensation is tremendous.

Baghdad Bruce

 

or Frank Dreben......nothing to see here...please disperse, NOTHING to see here

[bobandweave]

We are looking at 5 years, 120 million total with 80 guaranteed then because that's the deal we are hearing from guys like Adam Schefter and Chris Cooley. To me it's too much money but this puts us here

 

 

 

This isn't an immediate, decision we should rush. The time it's taking is normal, the fact Kirk's being coy not saying what he wants is just a negotiation tactic to force more money out, and the silence from Scot is another negotiation tactic because to come out and say "OMG we must keep him" or anything like that only means Kirk's squeezing more from us. 

 

I still believe unlike others that given the option of signing last season versus this season can't be done with 20-20 vision. Meaning those harping about how Scot screwed the pooch by not signing last year are only saying that because they are protected with the knowledge that he played well last year. To those of you saying how badly we screwed up not signing him then shame on you, all we saw last year was a run of games to end the season against teams wanting to lose I know because I was at Texas Stadium the last week of the season last year, and none of us knew if Kirk was a one year wonder or not then. It would have been irresponsible of us to sign him to a huge money deal last offseason with such a small sample size of work to go off of. Scot made the right call not signing him last year and making him prove he was worth investing in and to Kirk's credit he did prove it. Well we think he did

 

And what was Scot's statement about IF Kirk proved it last year? Then he would be paid like everyone else. I believe when the dust settles that is exactly what ends up happening here. We can't afford to not keep Kirk. We can't afford the embarrassment that would come to us if we released him and he won elsewhere. We just can't do that, not with the teams history of always needing a QB and 25 years since our last Superbowl win. To lose Kirk means he likely see Scot as a failure, it likely means Jay Gruden is looked at as a failure, and its bad for future business. I will be shocked to see us watch Kirk this weekend at the Probowl and not see him kept long term

[Est.1974]

How do you like me know, how do you like me now.......that's what Kirk thought in November.

 

I'd wager Scot isn't sold on him and the lure of high priced draft picks from the 49ers is the final nail in the coffin. We'll see.

 

 

[Wildbunny]

27 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

Schefter was asked that question you raised and was clear he believes that Kirk may not play this year opting to force us to release him. Not that he won't sign it until July, he was saying there is a "possibility" he will never sign a franchise tag with us which being honest is a possibility. It's as possible as someone seeing my posts here and offering me a coordinator job, possible but very highly unlikely. This sort of nonsense from Schefter seems to be in all of his sayings about Kirk the past 18 months, I don't believe based on what I've seen that Kirk is as disgruntled with the team as he does but who knows, you can't ever eliminate possibilities I guess

Yeah I really love it when guys starts talking possibilities...

 

There's a possibility that Jaguars / 49ers is LII SB. Or that a meteor will crash in one hour on Adam Schefter's head.

Will it happen? Most likely no. Except maybe for the meteor...

[Stefanskins]

5 hours ago, RVAskins said:

Jo Gibbs showed that you don't have to have the most talented QB's to win a Super Bowl (Theismann, Rypien, Williams). What you need is a solid QB, a good coaching staff and players who don't make a lot of mental errors.

 

yes but he was an anomaly...our very own beautiful amazing anomaly : ) 

[dyst]

1 hour ago, RedBeast said:

This JG talk about winning a super bowl with an average QB is total crap, the NFL has changed over the past 25 years ago and Joe is gone.

 

Let sleeping dogs lie...different era, different game guys.

But dude, 50 gut and the hogs and 3 different QBs and the did I mention 50 gut (I agree though ha)

[Stefanskins]

5 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

News flash - person with team in charge of delivering basic coach speak, delivers basic coach speak and say predictable comment.

 

*fans dumbfounded*

 

lol good gracious KB...you are becoming a bitter cynical old man like me...

4 hours ago, Wildbunny said:

 

 

now that's awesome!!

[mistertim]

5 minutes ago, dyst said:

But dude, 50 gut and the hogs and 3 different QBs and the did I mention 50 gut (I agree though ha)

 

Everything would be solved if we would use a flea-flicker more often.

[maskedsuperstar]

On 1/14/2017 at 1:49 PM, PartyPosse said:

 

Once again stop making up BS. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2016/12/06/the-redskins-third-and-long-defense-is-bad-historically-bad/?client=safari

 

BS huh? ?

On 1/23/2017 at 4:57 PM, Warhead36 said:

Well said. I made a post as well in one of the threads that went over in specific detail how often Cousins was clutch. I really need to find it but this post works just as well.

 

Cousins has actually been more clutch than choker. Its unfortunate though that he did choke in Week 17 this year, but we really shouldn't have even been in that position if other parts of the team did their job in other winnable games earlier in the year(specifically Detroit and Cincy where ironically Cousins was extremely clutch).

Philly game in Philly! Game winning drive. But the defense had me hooked up to an AED last minute of the game 

[Darth Tater]

54 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

So Kirk is saying that's it's out of his hands and that its up to the the Redskins to decide on the direction it wishes to take.

 

That in itself tells you Kirk has no idea what Scots intentions are. That can't be a good sign to a player heading into FA.

 

The odds are in favour of Kirk leaving IMO.

I would read that in a totally different manner.  It is known (I guess Allen, Scott and Gruden could all be lying) that they want Kirk back.  The only piece up for debate is at what price.  If Kirk is saying it is in their hands, he is saying that he'll most likely sign.

[Est.1974]

1 minute ago, Darth Tater said:

I would read that in a totally different manner.  It is known (I guess Allen, Scott and Gruden could all be lying) that they want Kirk back.  The only piece up for debate is at what price.  If Kirk is saying it is in their hands, he is saying that he'll most likely sign.

 

I find Kirks statement very defensive and deflective back towards our FO. Don't see that as an encouraging thing.