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

[Taylor703]

3 minutes ago, onedrop said:

feeling a bit lonely are we? id say theres just a wee bit of difference between a RB and QB not to mention the leverage or lack of that each has. 

 

also, im curious....you deride Cousins for not showing enough love to the team but whine about not signing Garcon and Jackson, BOTH of whom have publicly made overtures about leaving. one more so than the other AND regarding his former team. 

 

and before you start in on WHEN/WHY that all started....does it matter? would it have mattered if it was Cousins? NO, because you are blatantly biased against him based on what he hasnt done, what he hasnt said instead of holding others accountable for what they DID.

 

Or maybe he just doesn't see him in the same light you do? I would venture to say if Kirk hadn't given fans evidence that he's not the guy we wouldn't even be having these discussions. And I'm not saying he sucks or he isn't any good, but it's really not as black and white as people seem to think. I'm sure that's why the team is wrestling with what to do with him. 

[Gizmo 3squire]

2 minutes ago, Taylor703 said:

 

Or maybe he just doesn't see him in the same light you do? I would venture to say if Kirk hadn't given fans evidence that he's not the guy we wouldn't even be having these discussions. And I'm not saying he sucks or he isn't any good, but it's really not as black and white as people seem to think. I'm sure that's why the team is wrestling with what to do with him. 

 

I sort of agree/disagree. While none of us know what exactly is going on, to me there's definitely something that is holding back on the FO from pulling the trigger on a LTD. If it wasn't, he would've been signed a while ago. We could be wrong.

[onedrop]

1 minute ago, Taylor703 said:

 

Or maybe he just doesn't see him in the same light you do? I would venture to say if Kirk hadn't given fans evidence that he's not the guy we wouldn't even be having these discussions. And I'm not saying he sucks or he isn't any good, but it's really not as black and white as people seem to think. I'm sure that's why the team is wrestling with what to do with him. 

its not about seeing anyone in any presumed light. its about applying the same standard to each player. one saying nothing which seems to infuriate some members, another quoted as seeing "who is hiring" and one talking about rejoining a former team, both getting a pass.  

[wit33]

I comment to just pass time and the situation has my attention. I know nothing and have zero insider information. Just my attempt at psychoanalysis

 

It seems the Skins are dealing with an unprecedented approach from Kirk with his use of the franchise tag numbers. Admittedly, I haven't looked up deals in the past by other QBs as it related to that specific year's franchise tag money. 

 

I mentioned this in the past, it reminds me of Darrel Revis and how he handled his contracts while he was in his prime. He bet on himself and didn't worry about the long term deal and banked it on 1-2 year deals, then when his value was on the way down he signed a long term deal with Jets on his second time around. 

 

 

 

 

[Taylor703]

Just now, onedrop said:

its not about seeing anyone in any presumed light. its about applying the same standard to each player. one saying nothing which seems to infuriate some members, another quoted as seeing "who is hiring" and one talking about rejoining a former team, both getting a pass.  

 

I can agree with that. I would guess the major difference being DJax isn't seeking a contract at $23M+ a year. And while I'd like to hear all these guys say they want to be here, it's a business to them. To us, the fans, it's different. 

[Rskins06]

I really would like to see them resign KIRK, HOWEVER, if we have some team out there willing to make a blockbuster deal (2 1st rd picks), not sure you could walk away from that.  IF, he and his agent wanted to really play hardball, we tagged him, then were given an opportunity why not?

 

Of course, the cynical part of me would love it if he were traded to Cleveland:)  That would be great on 2 fronts:  1)  he goes to a team who has ZERO chance to compete for yeas and 2) he AGAIN beats out RGIII for the starting job:) 

 

But, there is zero chance anyone will give up 2 firsts for him.  Hopefully they can come to an agreement.  Not happy about the story of him not wanting to talk LTD until after the tag.  But the NFL is a business, I am not writing the paychecks so what they do will be fully supported by me (if only for the reason as I have no other choice).

[The Consigliere]

11 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The difference with Brock was in the guaranteed money and it was a major difference -- let alone the idea that Brock is Kirk's bar, it should be the reverse of that.  

http://www.csnmidatlantic.com/washington-redskins/did-redskins-lowball-kirk-cousins-contract-talks

If this report is accurate, that Redskins offer is almost shockingly low for Cousins. He is guaranteed $20 million this season alone; it makes almost zero sense to consider a long-term deal for just 20 percent more cash.

Assuming that offer is correct, one must question if the Redskins ever seriously wanted to engage in long-term negotiations for Cousins. In March, Brock Osweiler agreed to a four-year, $72 million deal with $37 million guaranteed. Considering that, Cousins' agent could not with possibly entertain an offer with $24 million guaranteed.

 

At the time he had half a season of a track record of quality play, leading up to that half, including the first half of '15 he'd been not just bad, but historically bad, like Osweiler bad, though in a different way (turnover happy on an epic scale). Osweiler had had the great game against New England, a handful of borderline adequate thoughts, and confusion over whether his anemic deep ball #'s were because the coach was completely averse to using his arm on anything other than short and intermediate results, or because he sucked at deep ball accuracy. After '15 and '16, we learned both could be true, and not just the former.

 

The nightmare, and major problem is that Houston made perhaps the worst/stupidest major FA signing ever in terms of approach, #, and talent. Remember, O'Brien never even saw him/met with him before he was signed?!?!?! It's difficult to fully express just how stupid and idiotic that signing was, both in terms of the #, and how Houston handled all the angles involved. To use that # to guide your process is so expletive stupid, I can't even conceive of much that is stupider. You don't get to believe that one, stupidest ever contract imaginable, outlines the framework for QB's in perpetuity. The fact that we spent a fortune on a thuggish, lazy idiot in Albert Haynesworth back in 2009 didn't mean that Haynesworth's contract (7 years 100 mill, 41 mill guaranteed) would set the standard parameters forever after at DT, and as evidence shows, it clearly did not (Wilfork signed for 5 years 40 mill, 25 guaranteed, while the following year Ngata signed a 5 year deal with the ravens for 61 mill total including 40 mill the first two years). 

 

Idiotic contracts do not set standard negotiating parameters when the league as a whole, knows they were idiotic. Just as the Haynesworth cap busting stupidity failed to set the standard for the #1 DT Free Agent in future years at the position, the Osweiler stupidity isn't going to be setting standards for any F.O. worth a damn, and if it does, they should be s canned. 

[goskins10]

17 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The difference with Brock was in the guaranteed money and it was a major difference -- let alone the idea that Brock is Kirk's bar, it should be the reverse of that.  

http://www.csnmidatlantic.com/washington-redskins/did-redskins-lowball-kirk-cousins-contract-talks

If this report is accurate, that Redskins offer is almost shockingly low for Cousins. He is guaranteed $20 million this season alone; it makes almost zero sense to consider a long-term deal for just 20 percent more cash.

Assuming that offer is correct, one must question if the Redskins ever seriously wanted to engage in long-term negotiations for Cousins. In March, Brock Osweiler agreed to a four-year, $72 million deal with $37 million guaranteed. Considering that, Cousins' agent could not with possibly entertain an offer with $24 million guaranteed.

 

Not sure how these conversations start going sideways but yet here we are - I never said Brock should be the measurement. I believe Kirk is a much better QB. Not even sure how that got to be part of the conversation.

 

And again, I really don't care what ESPN says in relation to Mike Jones or what the particulars of the contract ended up being. My issue is with Mike Jones saying one thing in Feb 2016 and something different in 2017. In 2016 he made it sound like Kirk wanted to sign the tag all along then in 2017 he makes it sounds like he wanted a LTD but the team was too cheap. That is the only point I was trying to make - nothing else.

Certainly there was intent to make any implication of Kirk's value or his level of play vs. Brock - who I actually think may be the worst QB in the NFL. But to be fair in Feb 2016 they looked a lot closer (not the same, but closer). Since then Kirk has excelled while Brock could not even keep a job he was given on a silver platter.

 

Hope that clears it up.

 

Please Redskins, please give us some real news so we can put this whole thing to rest!!!!

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

8 minutes ago, jschuck12001 said:

I typically watch the NFL Network because the information you get is from hall of fame/pro bowl players, coaches, and GM's and the consensus from them is pretty much the same.

 

Sanders and others on that network have said GM's and coaches around the league see him as a tier 3 QB.

 

I think it would be interesting to see how the league values Kirk, I'm not sure they value him as much as people think.

 

I watch NFL Network all the time, no way I'd sum up the aggregate take of Kirk that he's a third tier QB.  Like anything people have different takes -- but plenty of coaches, Ex-Qbs, players buy into Kirk.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CTskin]

If it's true that we only offered 16-18M/yr last year, then I seriously worry about us getting a LTD deal done this year. Even Kirk haters conceded he was worth in the $20M/yr range. 

 

I effing hate Florio. Pft keeps publishing articles mentioning how we wouldn't be in this position if management was smart last year. Yet, during the 2015 season that SOB was a big critic of Kirk, saying that signing him to a LTD would be a mistake because "he can't win on the road and he can't beat teams over .500 yadda yadda yadda."

 

Although I'm of the camp that Kirk showing no/minimal love to DC speaks volumes, I still respect the negotiation process. Comparing him to Blount, Bell, Berry really doesn't work. He's a QB whose team's success completely relies on him. The other guys are great, but their respective team's futures don't rely on their return. If Kirk said he loved DC and wouldn't want to play anywhere else (which I don't believe is true) he would be giving up his perfect negotiating stance. 

[Skinsinparadise]

15 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

And again, I really don't care what ESPN says in relation to Mike Jones or what the particulars of the contract ended up being. My issue is with Mike Jones saying one thing in Feb 2016 and something different in 2017. In 2016 he made it sound like Kirk wanted to sign the tag all along then in 2017 he makes it sounds like he wanted a LTD but the team was too cheap. That is the only point I was trying to make - nothing else

 

 

 

Ok, sorry got it. As for why Mike Jones changed his story.  Don't know.  Could be you learn things over time especially in retrospect.  Cooley-Sheehan did the same thing today talking about how their current take of what happened in last year's negotiations is different than what thought originally.  They even got into another segment where Cooley admitted his opinion is now changed today versus what he said in the past about what Kirk would have accepted.  They are giving the vibe that they have new information on it.

 

[PartyPosse]

25 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

I mentioned this in the past, it reminds me of Darrel Revis and how he handled his contracts while he was in his prime. He bet on himself and didn't worry about the long term deal and banked it on 1-2 year deals, then when his value was on the way down he signed a long term deal with Jets on his second time around. 

 

 

 

 

Except a CB can get away with doing this because an entire side of the field doesn't rely on stability and consistency from him to gel. Cousins is not acting like a leader of a football team and I personally feel like even if he does get signed longterm he's gonna lose a lot of support in the lockerroom regarding how he's left the team hanging with his own demands. 

[PartyPosse]

50 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

 

So I believe you'll rate Kaepernick and Sanchez as Clutch QB. They're 4-2 in playoffs.

 

And that 0-3 bummer Matthew Stafford really looked like a choker against us this year.

 

 

Don't you know? If cousins leads to a victory late it's clutch, if another QB does it's because the defense collapsed. Only Kirk is allowed to be clutch.

[Skinsinparadise]

21 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

 

Idiotic contracts do not set standard negotiating parameters when the league as a whole, knows they were idiotic. Just as the Haynesworth cap busting stupidity failed to set the standard for the #1 DT Free Agent in future years at the position, the Osweiler stupidity isn't going to be setting standards for any F.O. worth a damn, and if it does, they should be s canned. 

 

True.  What sets the market is the best position player who happens to be FA at that given year.  And contracts especially for QBs increase each year as oppose to remain static and frozen in time.  The FA QB who benefits this year from all of this happens to be Kirk.  You can ignore Brock's contract now I agree.  The comparison is the slew of 20 million plus guys, like Eli, Rivers, Palmer, Luck, Ryan -- even Tannehill is just a hair under 20.

 

[Wildbunny]

30 minutes ago, Taylor703 said:

 

I can agree with that. I would guess the major difference being DJax isn't seeking a contract at $23M+ a year. And while I'd like to hear all these guys say they want to be here, it's a business to them. To us, the fans, it's different. 

DJax is not playing QB either, so he has to deal with that also. DJax is not on the dawn of his career, rather dusk, while Kirk is just in the middle of it.

 

Two big differences here. I hardly see DJax plays until he's 36 or something... Garcon could do it. Guy is quite durable and not in the same mold of player. But DJax? highly unlikely.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

Another thing Casserly has always been dismissive of Cousins and may be looking to others to agree with him.

 

Casserly seems stuck in his opinion of Kirk from college -- he oddly doubles down in it frequently.   I like Casserly's personality seems like a cool guy but arguably he's the dude who orchestrated the Redskins demise in the 90s with too many bad drafts.   So I take his point of view with a grain of salt.  He said on Sheehan's show this week that he thinks Kirk could be had at $20 million a year.  

[wit33]

13 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

Except a CB can get away with doing this because an entire side of the field doesn't rely on stability and consistency from him to gel. Cousins is not acting like a leader of a football team and I personally feel like even if he does get signed longterm he's gonna lose a lot of support in the lockerroom regarding how he's left the team hanging with his own demands. 

 

I totally agree. Just an interesting comparison. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Is this the Casserly stuff  you guys are talking abouit?

 

 

 

[Est.1974]

Kirks leaving town I reckon and the FO is dragging it out long enough to make sure it has no blood on its hands.

 

To be honest, if he told me he was happy with the tag I'd trade his ass out of town too.

 

Would still like him back all told, but doesn't look like it's heading that way to me.

 

Damage limitation, screw another team in a trade war and move on.......

[Burgold]

Everyone seems so alarmist. Listened to sports radio today and it's even worse there. I'm not ready to be alarmist.

 

Hopefully, cooler, reasoned voices are negotiating away from all our hand wringing, conjecture, and silliness.

[NewCliche21]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I don't recall Jones saying Cousins is gone because the Redskins don't want him.   About 3 weeks or so ago, Jones was the most upbeat among the reporters covering the team about Kirk returning -- back then he said he thought they'd get a deal done saying the team wants to get a long term deal done.  Then this week he said Kirk likely wants 23.9 million a year but the Redskins are likely a few million below it.  Now today he's saying Kirk wants the tag and negotiate from that.  That's sort of consistent with JLC's story that the Redskins will likely get a long term deal done but it will happen before the July 15th deadline not the March 1st one.

 

If Mike Jones is right -- Kirk sticking to the tag makes sense.  If the Redskins FO won't budge to the 23.9 million figure, the tag in effect forces them to budge there.

 

Maybe "don't want him" wasn't the best choice of words.  What I meant was that if the Redskins had wanted to sign him, then they would have for that $23.9 million.  A few million for a guy you want, especially at a position you don't have more than one of at a time (unlike corner or wide receiver), with the kind of cap room that we have doesn't seem like a huge gulf to reconcile.  If you're unsure of him, then that's when a few million matters.  The $23.9 million doesn't sound unreasonable at all for a team that is sold on him.

Allen said a little while ago that the plan was for a long-term deal, too.  I don't think that was a Jones article, I'll try to find it, but the point really is that there's not really gonna be a whole lot to go on until July 15 where he hasn't signed or if he signs prior to that after being tagged next week.

 

I agree that it would be stupid not to take the tag from Cousins's position.

[Unbias]

What somewhat compounds the negotiations is where the cap is going. Sure it's ~$168M this year, but with the way team can carry over unused cap room that number only paints some of the picture. For example, Cleveland has a salary cap of ~$218M (~$106M available) and San Fran has a salary cap of ~$207M (~$78M available).

 

Realistically in free agency those are two teams that would be bidding up Kirk's contract and using their accumulated cap space to pay for difference makers.

 

It's spilled milk to say Washington should have extended him last offseason, but it's fair to say they need to get him locked up long term this offseason or he's pretty much a goner. Many of those big cap teams have that much cap room because they don't have a signal caller worth paying. If Kirk hits free agency he would give any distressed GM/HC someone to build around.  

[Boss_Hogg]

Cousins will be the QB in 2017 whether its a LTD or another tag. 

 

I don't fault Cuz for not taking the LTD before 3/1/17. He holds the cards after our front office mucked it up last year. 

[Est.1974]

15 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Everyone seems so alarmist. 

 

Not really, fairly interesting debate. This situation is a great example of how we as individuals can view or interpret the same information differently.

 

Personally i see Kirk gone, but I am open to either outcome. I can see merit in both, but numerous factors need to come together to make either choice a successful one.

1 minute ago, Unbias said:

What somewhat compounds the negotiations is where the cap is going. 

 

I don't see the cap as an issue. A long term deal keeps Kirk here for 3 years minimum. The deals being touted will take up 11% or 12% of our space over that 3 year period. That's easy done.

 

Thats not the problem, if there is one......

[Taylor703]

22 minutes ago, Boss_Hogg said:

Cousins will be the QB in 2017 whether its a LTD or another tag. 

 

I don't fault Cuz for not taking the LTD before 3/1/17. He holds the cards after our front office mucked it up last year. 

They didn't muck up anything. He was good for half a season. It would've been disastrous for this franchise had they paid him the $20M+ a year he wanted last year and he ended up playing poorly.