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

[ThomasRoane]

11 minutes ago, Rattlesnake88 said:

My point was that Kirk playing the "if the powers that be allow for it" card is bs. Kind of proving how full of **** he is. It's all politics really. I guess it's nothing to get worked up over. It's just unfortunate that the leverage he has is setting his market and not necessarily what he brings to the team. Sigh

 

As myself and many others have pointed out (even last year) the Front Office have put themselves in this position.  They could have come at Kirk aggressively the day after GB loss in the playoffs and got Kirk for about $40 to $50Mil guaranteed.  (Assuming this was complete before all the funny money was thrown out to Brock Osweiler and Bradford).  A smart FO would realize that QB's are ALWAYS a valuable commodity.  They could have worked in some off ramps as they have with Norman.  Then, if Kirk would have regressed they still could have received some draft value for him in return.  Or, since he actually improved (when you look at the tougher defensive schedule) you will have locked up your QB at a bargain basement price allowing you to spend heavily on defense. 

 

I'm wondering if maybe Bruce is pissed at SM for not getting the deal done last year.  SM was the most vocal about not signing Kirk.  As Bear Grylls would say that was a 'school boy error.'  One that should not be made by a savvy GM. 

[Bang]

37 minutes ago, -JB- said:

It is what it is.  If you haven't made the big play in the big game what makes me want to say you "could" make the play, you just "didn't" this time?? 

He's made big plays before in big games. The Packers game was full of them. Maybe not 'do or die' situations, but he hasn't been in many of those either.

 

Single moments do not make a season or a clear picture of a player, nor do single games, good or bad. That just isn't realistic.

The guy was still a second year starter, which is not an excuse, but a fact of reality. 

 

I think given the clear evidence that he has taken negatives and worked them either out of his game or down to manageable levels, there's no reason to believe  he won't be able to step back up after a bad performance in a big spot. It's part of the growth process.

Skepticism is expected, but i don't see anything to say this is his ceiling, or he is always going to be a choker. 

 

Now, same things happen next year, and maybe I'll nod along with you, but as of now, i can't see any definitive trends except that he continues to get better.

 

~Bang

 

 

 

[HOF44]

8 minutes ago, Rattlesnake88 said:

@HOF44

 

My point is that he wont be worth whatever he gets paid, that's the market as it's been stated over and over.

Doesn't the market, based on his play to this point, and the view of his potential define his worth?? Not the Redskins.

[srtman04]

We are potentially getting ready to witness the greatest **** up job in the history of sports.   Everything I am hearing, is all bad.  Nothing good.  It is so bad, that even after they make the right moves and keep Kirk/offense, it won't make me feel any better about our moronic front office moving forward.  But it would be infinitely better than a ****ing rebuild.   

[TD_washingtonredskins]

2 minutes ago, Bang said:

Now, same things happen next year, and maybe I'll nod along with you, but as of now, i can't see any definitive trends except that he continues to get better.

 

~Bang

 

 

 

I wouldn't even be there yet if next year looks shaky. Look how many starts it took before Ryan or Stafford were anything more than guys who folded in the second half of seasons. 

[Unbias]

1 minute ago, srtman04 said:

We are potentially getting ready to witness the greatest **** up job in the history of sports.   Everything I am hearing, is all bad.  Nothing good.  It is so bad, that even after they make the right moves and keep Kirk/offense, it won't make me feel any better about our moronic front offense moving forward.  But it would be infinitely better than a ****ing rebuild.   

Okay, maybe expand...

[Bang]

Just now, TD_washingtonredskins said:

I wouldn't even be there yet if next year looks shaky. Look how many starts it took before Ryan or Stafford were anything more than guys who folded in the second half of seasons. 

True, but if things go as expected, he's going to be VERY VERY expensive in 2018, so we may not even get the chance to develop him further.  

If he plays on another tag, he has to ball out even better than this year.

 

Is it possible he could price himself out of a lot of team's willingness in 2018?

 

~Bang

[Skinsinparadise]

42 minutes ago, CTskin said:

 

I keep seeing this "$23.9M/yr" number thrown around in regard to Kirk's LTD. I guarantee Kirk's camp is starting negotiations much higher, $25M+; they'll hang up the phone if the Skins FO mentions "fair market value." 

 

Anyone here whose in business and has negotiated terms should be able to understand my reasoning. Think about having every bit of the upper hand against someone who wrong you in the past...

 

I have been listening to and reading pretty much all the Kirk stuff -- and one thing has been consistent in all of it -- the Redskins have not given Kirk an offer of 23.9 million a year.   So the idea that he will reject that offer and ask for more -- heck you never know but I won't believe it until it happens.  Mike Jones suggested a couple of days ago that the $23.9 million a year would likely get it done.

 

So the Kirk is being greedy drill, nothing will satisfy him, etc -- I've not seen any report that suggests he'd turn down a contract that fits his tag figure.   You got me, maybe he would but again I have seen one beat reporter say that they offered him 23.9 million.  They mostly center on the opposite point -- suggesting the Redskins don't want to pay that much, at least not yet. 

[Rattlesnake88]

3 minutes ago, HOF44 said:

Doesn't the market, based on his play to this point, and the view of his potential define his worth?? Not the Redskins.

This guy would like for you to believe he was paid based on his play too.

[HOF44]

3 minutes ago, Rattlesnake88 said:

This guy would like for you to believe he was paid based on his play too.

 

He was paid on potential and it has yet to be proven out.  That's the world of QB in the NFL.  If you are not willing to put your big boy pants on and take some chances you end up in a QB wasteland.  They need 32 of them, it's a stretch to say there are 16 proficient.  If you have one that shows a glimmer of promise you damn well better hold onto them.  If you don't someone else will take that chance on them if they can. 

[TradeTheBeal!]

A couple days without Caps or Wiz games and the local media has the whole fanbase scratching til they bleed.

 

R

E

L

A

X

 

We're either gonna go with overpaying a 2nd-tier QB or building up our defense.  Almost certainly looking at 7 to 9 wins either way.

[Unbias]

1 minute ago, HOF44 said:

He was paid on potential and it has yet to be proven out.  That's the world of QB in the NFL.  If you are not willing to put your big boy pants on and take some chances you end up in a QB wasteland.  They need 32 of them, it's a stretch to say there are 16 proficient.  If you have one that shows a glimmer of promise you damn well better hold onto them.  If you don't someone else will take that chance. 

What would another team pay for Kirk's potential knowing how he's performed the past ~2 seasons? 

[Veryoldschool]

4 hours ago, ThomasRoane said:

 

Right, but here is the case with the Transition tag.  Kirk does not have to agree to a LTD with the team that the Redskins trade him to.  Let's say they trade him to Cleveland.  Kirk is under no obligation to sign a LTD with the Browns just because the Redskins traded their rights for a year.  Why would he do that when he could just wait a year and then pick his team; and a better situation? 

 

Now, given that fact.  If you were the Browns why would you make the deal knowing that Kirk may not even want to sign with your team?  If you are the 49ers or Rams why wouldn't you just suck it up with a journeyman QB for a year, use your draft picks to improve your team, and then sign Kirk when it only costs $? 

So, that is why trading Kirk is a fantasy.  It won't happen.  We either sign him to a LTD, rent him for a year, or let him walk for a compensatory 4th round pick. 

Hope you understand what I'm getting at now.  Not trying to be rude.

 

I agree.  I don't see a trade after he's tagged for the reason you cited.  It would take a fair amount of cooperation for the Cousins camp to facilitate a wink and a nod agreement regarding Kirk's tenure with the acquiring team prior to the trade to induce they acquiring team to feel comfortable giving something up of value to the Skins.  I don't see that happening.

 

Kirk's a smart guy he'll graciously accept the raise give the Skins another good year and be free sign with whom he wants in 2018, have the Skins finally meet his price or tag him a 3rd time.  I can't see that happening either.

 

I think the instant he is tagged he sign the tender and school is out for 2017.  I don't expect him to court or consider other offers and for that matter I don't think better offers from the Redskins are considered either after March 1.  March 1 is going to be one and done for Kirk in DC.  It is going to suck to be Snyder, Allen and others if they only figure it out after March 1.

 

 

[HOF44]

1 minute ago, Unbias said:

What would another team pay for Kirk's potential knowing how he's performed the past ~2 seasons? 

I don't know, but the Skins must think it's a damn lot!  If not they would just transition tag him and match the low offers he gets and everyone would be happy. 

[Cooleyfan1993]

1 hour ago, markmills67 said:

If you were a betting man do you think Cousins will sign a LTD with the Skins?

I think it's 50/50. Maybe 40/60 (40% he does, 60% he doesn't). Franchise tag is best bet in my opinion. 

[Est.1974]

The parameters of a LTD would be in place before a trade. The parameters of our trade with another team for a replacement QB would also be in place.

 

Playing here under the tag seems a non starter to me. The offense would be going through the motions for the season, can't see how that would end well for anyone........

[XtremeFan55]

I think the team and the fans have to accept the fact that Kirk wants to play somewhere else.  Having Kyle now HC at San Francisco just makes it even more obvious that Kirk will not sign a LT contract.   Can you blame him after what he had to deal with during the first 3 years of his career here?  Snyder's infatuation with RG3....the drama with the Shanahans....the snub when he filled in and won games...etc...  Kirk knows he is better off somewhere else.   I don't blame him one bit.  Signing a long term contract and becoming one of the highest paid players in the game will only work against him if he ever has a bad year.  I can picture Snyder standing at the locker room door after losing games and glaring at him and then sending his minions out to leak false stories that his teammates have given up on him...etc.. Who in his right mind would sign up for that?  Too much bad history in this franchise to have any confidence that things will be different.  

[Rattlesnake88]

Just now, HOF44 said:

He was paid on potential and it has yet to be proven out.  That's the world of QB in the NFL.  If you are not willing to put your big boy pants on and take some chances you end up in a QB wasteland.  They need 32 of them, it's a stretch to say there are 16 proficient.  If you have one that shows a glimmer of promise you damn well better hold onto them.  If you don't someone else will take that chance. 

Not debating that at all. And yes we should have signed him long term last year. A lot of people including myself believe we should have locked him up for 100mil last offseason. But it didn't happen and here we are. 

 

The qb wasteland and stuff is nonsense to me. Sometimes it just boils down to being lucky, or taking chances as you said. Some of y'all are acting like Kirk could NEVER be replaced. Would it suck to see the defense get bolstered and flounder around with a Rex grossman type and wonder "what if" if Kirk is lighting it up else where? Yes that would be awful. But what if we took a different kind of "big boy" move and said "no thanks Kirk, 28 million a year is silly for a guy who has never thrown for more than 30 tds in a season or won a playoff game, enjoy California". We follow that with a gamble on another qb, spend the money to keep Jackson, sign Brandon Williams, Poe, Berry or some other difference maker/makers. Draft a stud rb, a solid lg and work on getting a qb to drive the bus and we still compete. What if this gamble works and Kirk is in roster hell with a rookie gm, HC and dip**** owner in San Fran. Kirk never sees a meaningful game last November again and Scotty Mac hoists the Lombardi screaming "how you liiiikkkkke meeee now!!!!!?"....

 

got carried away, but seriously. Sign him if we can, pay him 25 mil a year if that's what it takes. But if he acts like a pig, I would take what I could get and build a bully in the trenches and front 7.

[Skinsinparadise]

Greg Rosenthal on the air summed up my position perfectly -- he said forgot the noise, are the Redskins decision makers on this willing to put their jobs on the line if they say lets trust door #2 on QB instead and they ultimately go 4-12?  He said they'd really be sticking their neck out big and people just don't put their jobs on the line like that.  So he thinks Kirk is going nowhere. 

 

To add to that with Pappa Shanny for example talking up Kirk for years as being a top QB and a stud -- would the Redskins brass really throw Kirk into Junior Shanny's lap and for them potentially to have the last laugh/vindication at their expense?

 

This team does tend to excel at one thing and that is the off season PR game -- chasing Kirk out of town isn't a PR winner.  There are some straggler fans who don't buy into the idea that having Kirk or not having him effects the bottom line or want to believe he's a bad guy based on how he's dealing with the contract and want him gone for it.  But those are stragglers.  Clearly, most fans are concerned about it and it won't go over well with them if Kirk is chased out of here.   It definitely won't give the vibe of winning the off season.  Maybe they don't care but I suspect they do.   But even if they don't, I don't see the logic in it going down with him off to SF or just back on a one year rental. 

 

 

[CTskin]

17 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

A couple days without Caps or Wiz games and the local media has the whole fanbase scratching til they bleed.

 

R

E

L

A

X

 

This new Spring break week in hockey is terrible. It did a heck of a job cooling off the Caps.

[clskinsfan]

1 hour ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

If we unload Cousins and he's signed for 6 years with only $60M in guarantees, I would be devastated. 

 

If the guy doesnt WANT to be here than he wouldnt have signed that offer with us regardless. No reason to be devastated. We would have gotten what we could out of a guy that didnt want to be a Redskin.

[Rattlesnake88]

9 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

There are some straggler fans who don't buy into the idea that having Kirk or not having him effects the bottom line or want to believe he's a bad guy based on how he's dealing with the contract and want him gone for it.  But those are stragglers.  

 

I'm on the fence myself about the whole thing. But to blanket a group of people into a subclass of fandom based on their view is awfully bold. I hope the smoke the "stragglers" are smelling isn't fire because the clear eyed majority could tail spin.

 

[ILikeBilly]

15 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

This team does tend to excel at one thing and that is the off season PR game -- chasing Kirk out of town isn't a PR winner.  ...

 

It definitely won't give the vibe of winning the off season. 

 

 

I agree with what you said in your post, but I think a blockbuster trade would also be a winning PR move.  Let's say we get the SF 1st rounder this year and next and we give them Kirk and our 2nd rounder.  We now have 2 first rounders 2 years in a row.  We can build the defense this year, and if needed, target a QB with our 2 first rounders next year.  It could be sold as a bold, winning move.  I don't want this to happen, but I would be super excited to see how we used our two first rounders come April. 

[Skinsinparadise]

4 minutes ago, Rattlesnake88 said:

 

I'm on the fence myself about the whole thing. But to blanket a group of people into a subclass of fandom based on their view is awfully bold. I hope the smoke the "stragglers" are smelling isn't fire because the clear eyed majority could tail spin.

 

 

You think fans are torn about signing Kirk versus not?  Have you checked what happens anytime the issue gets polled?  How about on this thread -- you find it 50-50?

[Rattlesnake88]

Just now, Skinsinparadise said:

 

You think fans are torn about signing Kirk versus not?  Have you checked what happens anytime the issue gets polled?  How about on this thread -- you find it 50-50?

Not at all. You just took a minority opinion and called them stragglers, as if they are wrong for leaving the correct path. Minority opinion doesn't mean wrong. Just found it bold considering he could end up elsewhere and those "stragglers" may have been onto something.