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

[RemoveSnyder]

Honestly, if I were negotiating with Kirk, I'd add a sweet ride like this to the contract:

 

 

 

Kirk likes vans ... 

[lavar1156]

37 minutes ago, purbeast said:

I heard on the radio on the way home that the Redskins aren't big on resigning Baker either - like wtf is their plan?  I know this is all speculation/rumors, but if this is true, they are going to have MASSIVE holes on offense and defense at this rate that they need to fill.  

 

Probably because Baker isn't that good. And it sounds like he wants to get paid.

[Veryoldschool]

53 minutes ago, ILikeBilly said:

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. 

 

That deal sucks and would be even dumber than the stupid desperation trade for Griffin.  Remember that deal?  Three first rounders and a second for a college QB playing a spread option they HOPED could play QB in the NFL.   Now you think it would be smart for the Skins to give up a 28 year old Pro Bowl QB they developed for a couple of draft picks?

 

They would have select a Pro Bowl QB to break even.... what are odds of that?  Not good.  The chances of selecting a future Pro Bowl QB even if the drafted a QB with every selection are minuscule.  The odds of even selecting a quarterback good enough to hold down the job are terrible.  Google this list of Redskin starters for the last 30 years, look at all the squandered draft choices and turmoil. 

 

Why go through of that when all they have to do is pay Cousins 20-30% more than they think they should?  Only idiots would fail to pony up.  

 

 

[Bang]

36 minutes ago, purbeast said:

I heard on the radio on the way home that the Redskins aren't big on resigning Baker either - like wtf is their plan?  I know this is all speculation/rumors, but if this is true, they are going to have MASSIVE holes on offense and defense at this rate that they need to fill.  

I don't think it would hurt my feelings much. Baker makes a play here and there, but overall, i think he loafs at times, and at other times, he's more interested in posing than finishing a play. sometimes he seems unblockable, other times he's vanished.

the middle of our D let any runner through like it was a door at the grocery store.

Baker's OK, but I would think we fans will overvalue him. 

 

if we re-sign him to a modest deal, again, won't hurt my feelings much. I'd take him back.

 

But i think this is for another thread. Unfortunately, i am too lazy to go look for it.

 

~Bang

[Warhead36]

Agreed with Bang. Baker is an okay player, but he's drastically overrated here because he's the only DL worth a damn. I don't think he's worth paying big bucks to keep. He also turns 30 in October.

 

I feel like this is going to be the off season where McC really puts his stamp on the team. We're going to see a lot of players let go and with 10 draft picks, much more emphasis on youth, athleticism, and especially size(McC has always preferred big guys).

[The Consigliere]

51 minutes ago, purbeast said:

I heard on the radio on the way home that the Redskins aren't big on resigning Baker either - like wtf is their plan?  I know this is all speculation/rumors, but if this is true, they are going to have MASSIVE holes on offense and defense at this rate that they need to fill.  

 

I imagine that's because it would be the dreaded "decline" contract. He turns 30 in October. You don't want to be giving big "pay day" deals to players entering 30, particularly players who play positions that tend to wear down the body quickly. That being said, it's just yet another reminder of why the pick should have been Leonard Williams two years  ago. Easily the best prospect on the board, filled a need to boot, and played a position that #1 costs a fortune to address in FA, and #2 is extremely expensive to address with a blue chip prospect in a draft (in other words, you can't get Leonard Williams caliber DT talent w/any consistency outside the top 10 or so, whereas elite interior OL's are both FA cheap (top tier players cme about 20-30% cheaper in FA than their DT counterparts, and top end interior lineman prospects litter drafts between slots 15-50 typically, not so with DT's). And btw, Leonard Williams is 22 (23 by the season opener). 

[markmills67]

7 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Agreed with Bang. Baker is an okay player, but he's drastically overrated here because he's the only DL worth a damn. I don't think he's worth paying big bucks to keep. He also turns 30 in October.

 

I feel like this is going to be the off season where McC really puts his stamp on the team. We're going to see a lot of players let go and with 10 draft picks, much more emphasis on youth, athleticism, and especially size(McC has always preferred big guys).

If McLoughan doesn't sign Cousins to a LTD I don't want him to put no more of his stamps on this team.

[JSSkinz]

 

50 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Why doesn't it make sense? 

 

 

 

 

If we're not willing to pay the going rate of a long term deal which is $60 mill fully guaranteed, then why would we give him $43 mill fully guaranteed over 2 years? 

 

Also, we lose any chance of getting anything for him after next season because everyone knows we won't cap him again due to the price.

 

 

 

[Hooper]

Gruden and KC have finally given us a little bit of respectability and Danny and company are most likely going to screw it up. It just kills me.

[Taylor 36]

35 minutes ago, 50yrSKINSfan said:

I don't know how you can compare KC to Brees. KC was a 4th rd pick and Brees was a high 2nd I believe, after a great big 10 career. KC sat the bench for 3 years after a not so good college career, and when he played he was not that good and he was even benched in his 3rd year while Brees was a starter right out of school. So now you want to compare KC 2 years as a starter, when in fact he is in his 5th year and you do not want to use his first 3 years in the league, and you want to use DB 1st 2 years as a starter when in fact he was a starter in his rookie year while KC was a bench warmer his first 3 years. Brees doing blah blah? Do you mean having more passing yards and more TDs than any other qb in that amount of time? Brees is a first ballot HOF player do you think KC is even close to a HOF player? If KC was that good then how come the Redskins did not lock him up after last year?

You are being disingenuous by ignoring the numbers and ignoring the play of Brees and his supposed HOF status when he started his career.

 

First, draft position and college stats mean absolutely nothing.  Nothing.  That has been proven time and time again in the NFL.  Why you are harping on those two, makes no sense.  Tom Brady didn't do much in college, went back and forth trying to beat out Drew Henson at Michigan as the starter.  He was then drafted in the sixth round, 199 over all.  You know what all of that means for his pro career?  Absolutely nothing.  RGIII won the Heisman and was drafted number two overall.  What does that mean for his NFL career?  Absolutely nothing.

 

Second, Brees did not start out of the gate.  He sat behind Flutie until Doug was benched halfway through the 2001 season.  He was then benched two years later for Flutie. After that season, his third, the Chargers were ready to move on from Brees because he wasn't blowing anyone away and led the team, along with Flutie, to a tie for worst record in the NFL that year.  They were so ready to give up on him that they used the first overall pick in the draft to take a QB that threatened to holdout if they picked him, and then traded him to the Giants for Rivers.

 

Regardless, it has no merit on how his first 20 starts compare to Cousins' first 20 starts, especially considering that Brees had a better supporting cast and didn't have nearly the amount of pressure of having to carrying his team, the market he played in (San Diego - the great football mecca that was great they finally lost their franchise), and didn't have a second overall pick and FO looking over his shoulder the entire time he finally got a chance to play.  This past offseason was the first in Cousins' NFL career that he got to prepare as the starter.  Brees had that starting his second season, which allowed him the offseason to work with the starters and all the first team reps.  Again, cousins didn't get that until this past offseason.

 

Still, when it's all said and done, Cousins has performed just as well as Brees has when he got his chance to take over in the same amount of time that they equally had.  Cousins has better numbers in almost every category and a better W-L percentage, broke franchise records, and has shown he can work on his deficiencies and improve. You can say all you want that he has five years in, but he only has two years as a starter, which is huge difference.  Plus, it's not like he was sitting on the bench learning by watching a future HOF play in front of him.  If anything, you could say he was hampered by having to spend his first couple of years watching a QB play in a system that wasn't even a pro system.

 

In the end, Brees improved, and his fourth year as a starter saw him break through to become the great QB he is today.  Cousins is ahead of him at this point and there is no reason to believe that, given the amount of starts and reps Brees had, that Cousins won't get to the same great level that Brees finally did.  I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand.

[Titaw]

What kills me is the fact that we have our best QB in a couple of decades and the FO is "afraid" of making a mistake in paying KC any kind of big money. This is what I see happening, no LTD is worked out with Cousins and no sweetheart trade of 2 first rounders is made because although the market is set for him as far as his worth $$$ wise, I truly don't think he's worth 2 firsts. We franchise him, neither DJax or Pierre resign, Doctson stays hurt and the skins squander the draft per the usual. Unless the FO is pulling the wool over our eyes our team will be mired in mediocrity and the offense takes a step back all to say "I told you so" in regards to KC.

[DM72]

You're being over dramatic. 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

I agree with that mindset but after they botched it last offseason, it's not up to the Redskins anymore. 

 

Kirk can do what he wants. It makes more financial sense for him anyway to now pocket $24 million for one year and then sign a long term deal. 

 

Im not sure we have much say in the matter anymore, outside of a Don Corleone offer 

 

To me though we can dance around on so many points but how doesn't it come down to simply this at least for the moment?

 

A.  Kirk wants a fair market value deal which some insiders are saying is 23.9 million a year -- same figure as the tag.

B.  The Redskins haven't offered Kirk a 23.9 million a year deal.

 

Again we can dance with all the different opinions but most of the beat & national reporters agree more or less on that point.  So the whole Kirk doesn't want to be here.  Kirk could be offered 23.9 million a year and still say no.  Kirk is being greedy.  Or whatever other side story is in play -- to me is just smoke.  The fire to me is clear and simple.  Kirk likely wants a contract that matches the tag.  The front office hasn't offered him that.  

 

And I know you are on the side of giving Kirk the money.   So this point isn't directed at you.   But my point is all the side stories relating to Kirk to me really gives the front office an out.  If the contract doesn't get resolved, I am not giving the front office an out. (I still though think they will get it done )  I won't say to myself well they didn't offer Kirk 23.9 million a year but heck so what because if they did Kirk would have turned it down anyway.  I'd need to hear it actually went down that way before leaping to how Kirk would react.

[XtremeFan55]

Another way of looking at things.  Kirk saw the Redskins give RG3 $16 million for one year where he didn't even suit up for a single game.  Wasn't even the backup.  Everyone in Redskins Park... besides Snyder... probably knew RG3 didn't know how to play quarterback at the pro level....yet he got paid.   If Snyder was willing to waste $16 million on a player who had zero impact....why not open the wallet and pay $24 million a year long term for a proven quarterback who played light years better than RG3 and was the single brightest player on the team for the last two years.  Losing Kirk won't just mean losing a franchise quarterback...it will damage the reputation of the team so that players will only come to get paid.  Redskins have no choice....but the longer this drags on the more this becomes a matter of 'winning' the contract battle and both sides dig in.  Again...I really believe Kirk wants to play somewhere else.

[Rattlesnake88]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I tend to use the word straggler to being off the beaten path.  I've used it to define myself on some positions.  But yeah you are right taking the definition literally it means correct path -- sorry, I didn't mean it that way.   Regardless, it wasn't really the thrust of my point.   The point of the post wasn't that people with minority opinions are wrong (people can think whatever makes sense to them, no rights or wrongs until it plays out) -- the point was playing off of Rosenthal's point which was letting a good QB go isn't how teams typically do business so if they do it here and it doesn't work out then it might cost people their jobs.

All good, I got a lil carried away and really straw man'd it a bit lol

[markmills67]

If we do trade Cousins would we get 2 1st round picks?

[Rattlesnake88]

2 hours ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

Also, him saying the right things when he does speak (wants to be here, just wants a fair contract, etc.) is expected from a professional, whether they mean it or not.  It's possible that he would love to stay in DC and sign a LTD that he think represents his value/worth (because he knows he will get paid).  It's also possible that he really would love to stay, but doesn't receive the offer he wants and goes elsewhere.  Or he could not really want to be here and is maximizing his earnings in hopes to be gone after this season or be traded, etc.  

 

That doesn't make him greasy and sketchy.  Or a bad person, or an asshole, or any other negative/derogatory description you want to label him with.  You're complaining about him trying to maximize his earnings, in his profession.  You don't think he's worth 24 million/yr, thats fine.  It really doesn't matter what you think, what I think or any other fan thinks.  It matters what the Redskins think, what Kirk thinks and what other teams think. 

You make good points and most of them I don't even have an argument for because I agree. But between the noogie, shoving the charity game referee and all the posturing he does, hes a tad greasy. It's all good man. Just my feel on the guy. I want him to sign too. But like you said "It really doesn't matter what you think" or what I think. I think there is a lot of armchair psycho-analysis going on around here lately, and my diagnoses is greasycloakedinJesustosis, but he can play qb for the Skins all day and Ill cheer for the guy.

 

HTTR

[ncr2h]

I think there's plenty of merit to the idea that guys who started their careers late - Tony Romo, Aaron Rodgers, Kurt Warner, Kirk Cousins, etc. - don't necessarily follow the same trajectory as guys who are learning the ropes during their rookie seasons (Brees, Manning, etc.).  The late starters don't necessarily have lower ceilings, either.  Some of them come out the gate hot and then make a big jump a few years later (Rodgers).  Some of them come out the gate hot but never really get any better (Romo).  And some of them regress (Warner).  Of those 3, Warner started the hottest (134 ANY/A+ in debut season) and cooled off the most (median career ANY/A+ of 112).  Rodgers started the coldest (112 ANY/A+ in debut season) but improved the most (median career ANY/A+ of 119).  Romo was in the middle (122 ANY/A+ in debut season) but hasn't improved significantly (median career ANY/A+ of 117).  It's hard to tell which of those profiles most closely matches Cousins, but it's noteworthy that since 2014 he has improved from ANY/A+ of 109 to 114 in 2015 to 119 in 2016, so it's possible that he's a "grower" like Rodgers.  If so, we'd be due for a big bump in performance soon.  It's also possible that he's already done growing.

 

Not sure why we got sidetracked on the Drew Brees issue.  29 year-old Kirk Cousins is likely to be around as valuable to the Redskins as 38 year-old Drew Brees is to the Saints.  It's obvious that Cousins' career accomplishments are nowhere close to Brees', but we're not here to argue about that.

[XtremeFan55]

The more I think about Kirk's situation the more I see how he holds all the cards.   By signing the FT he is guaranteed $24 million for 2017 and will be free to go wherever he wants in 2018 where he can then sign a long term deal that will most likely be over $100 million for 5 years.  He ends up making $144 million plus for 7 years with the bulk of it guaranted or already paid out.  If Redskins decide to trade him after he signs the FT, he still controls his destiny because he could refuse to sign a long term deal if team is not to his liking.   Meaning a team like Cleveland will be paying $24 million plus giving up precious high draft picks for a one year rental.  That won't happen.  Everything seems to point to Cousins going to San Francisco with Cousins and San Francisco in the drivers seat.  With almost $100 million cap space, San Francisco can make a big splash by signing Alshon Jeffreys and AJ Bouye.  They could even add DeSean Jackson...who is from Oakland so like going home for him... or Garcon...and bring back Vernon Davis to give Cousins some players he is familiar with.  Add Torrey Smith, Jeremy Kerley and Carlos Hyde....they could have an explosive offense from day one.  Kirk is not dumb so I am sure he sees all this.....  At the end of the day....Kirk will get paid and get to pick his team.  Redskins won't be in any position to demand two number one picks....they will get less....maybe the number 2 pick this year and a middle round next year.  IMO

[Skinsinparadise]

20 minutes ago, Rattlesnake88 said:

All good, I got a lil carried away and really straw man'd it a bit lol

 

It's all cool.  It made me look up straggler on the web.  I definitely use that word too loosely especially describing myself, so good catch on your end.  

[XtremeFan55]

I see only two scenarios.  One...Kirk signs a LT contract and becomes the highest paid player in the NFL with the highest guarantee money....or...two he signs the FT and gets traded to a team of his choice for far less than two number one picks.  Redskins have no leverage at all and will be thrilled if they can get one high number one pick.  Get ready to accept this.  Nothing personal...this is business and no one can begrudge Kirk for using his leverage to his max benefit.

[Taylor 36]

I know this is a couple of months old, but I found it an interesting read and measurements on redrafting the 2012 QB class: https://www.numberfire.com/nfl/lists/11705/re-drafting-the-quarterbacks-from-the-2012-nfl-draft-using-advanced-analytics 

 

I also found this article interesting about the whole free agency silence.

http://riggosrag.com/2017/02/22/washington-redskins-gone-silent/

I'll probably post it in the Cooley thread as well.

[elkabong82]

On 2/21/2017 at 6:40 PM, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

There are tons of examples of large contracts that can be broken after 3 years with little dead cap, comparatively. See Josh's Normans for example. After year 3 of this monster contract, he can be released for $9 mil cap hit. Hardly anything to freak out about. 

 

We're talking $45-50 mil guaranteed (Norman got 50 as well) with tons of available cap space over the first couple years on a Cousins deal last offseason. It could have easily been done. 

 

It wouldnt be a a death sentence at all. Kirk would have signed because we'd be handing him $50million dollars (to a guy making $750k maybe? ) and the chance to lead a professional football team and earn more. 

 

We ****ed around with him and now it's going to cost us 

 

 

If there are tons of examples then why no examples of a QB from you?

 

Norman signed for 5 years, $75 million, $50 mil. guaranteed, a signing bonus of $15 mil, and a roster bonus of $500,000. His average is $15mil a year.

 

The team shifted the dead cap money mostly into the first 2 years ($48.5 mil of the contract). His last 2 years the dead cap totals $9 mil and he could be released with that counting against us. 

 

Now, here's the difference with QBs.

 

Russell Wilson signed a 4 year, $87.6 mil contract with $31 mil signing bonus and $61.5 mil guaranteed. His average is $21.9 mil a year. The first 2 years are loaded with dead cap, at $69 mil. But the last 2 years total, if he were released, would be $18.6 mil cap hit.

 

Andrew Luck signed a 5 year, $123 mil contract with $32 mil signing bonus and $87 mil guaranteed. His average is $24.6 mil a year. The dead cap is front loaded, and the last 2 years still totals $19.2 mil.

 

These are 2 young QBs drafted same year as Kirk and have recent contracts. Playing Devil's advocate, let's say Kirk would have agreed to 5 years at an average of $20 mil per year. That is $100 million total. Going off Wilson and Luck, the signing bonus would be $28 mil give or take. Guaranteed money for Luck is 75%, Wilson 67%, so Kirk let's say 60%, or $60 mil guaranteed. Kirk's cap hit if released in the last 2 years would likely be around $17 million. 

 

That is why I was dubious of your claim that we could easily get out of a franchise QB type of contract. No, we can't. QB contracts are the highest ones typically, they have bigger signing bonuses, and more guaranteed money. Only way to get out of one is if you sign a QB to a lower-tier value.

 

Osweiler signed for 4 years, $72 mil, $37mil guaranteed, $12mil sign bonus, average of $18mil, last 2 years dead cap totals $9 mil. Tannehill signed for 4 years, $77 mil, $45 mil guaranteed, $11.5 mil sign bonus, average of $19.25mil, last 2 years dead cap totals $6.9 mil. Easy enough to get out of in last 2 years.

 

Kirk wasn't going to sign for what they signed for. His signing bonus was going to be larger as was his guaranteed money. His contract numbers were going to be closer to Wilson than Brock, meaning his dead cap hit for the last 2 years also was going to be closer to WIlson than Brock, likely anywhere between $14-$18 mil. 

 

Further, you don't seem to factor in the up front cost of the annual cap hit for QB. Kirk's would have been an average of $20mil which does take away resources and if the signing is bad that also impacts the building process. 

 

The team wanted to see more out of Kirk before committing this kind of contract. I think your position is heavily exaggerated. If in real-life they could have signed him last year to a contract with just slightly more guaranteed money than Tannehill and it could be gotten out of after 3 years with little impact on the team and a dead cap hit of under $10 mil then the team would have offered it to him. Why? Because there would have been almost no risk at that point. That big contract wouldn't have really hurt the team if it didn't pan out. But the team didn't do it, and didn't even come up from the low ball offer. Simple application of reasoning dictates the most likely reason is that the contract Kirk really would have agreed on last year would have had risk due to more guaranteed mone than you estimate, a larger signing bonus you didn't factor in, and a dead cap hit not far off from Wilson's. That is why the team didn't even negotitate and instead wanted to see more Kirk to mitigate the very real risk and ramifications invovled.

 

 

 

 

 

[madden lot]

@Dont Taze Me Bro I'm with you on shutting down this thread. like you said, the CBA is the cause of this. its all parties exercising there rights and its nothing wrong with that. 

[bobandweave]

4 hours ago, Taylor 36 said:

Maybe you should just stop, because you are embarrassing yourself.

 

Im not into reading completely wrong opinions on this forum and arguing with people on message forums who want to quote things like you did there and not answer the actual point being made. If I was doing what you just did there then. I would be embarrassed

 

Just because you quote me and are rude to a stranger doesn't make you right. Simply saying QBs get paid doesn't tell the story as to why one guy is paid one million for a season and another is paid 25 times that. I highly suggest you act more professional in the future and try to understand someone before verbally attacking them.

 

As for my knowledge of this game and how the NFL works I'm sure I would amaze you with what I know. 

 

I'm honest saying Kirk isn't clutch and point out how he's middle of the pack and no where near worth top five money which is why he's not been signed because we aren't a team that's been dumb in free agency lately should be listened to not shouted down like this.

 

I am a die hard Redskins fan and always will be and we are in a tough spot here. The best move is to move on from him before anchoring our franchise with a guy who can throw 5000 yards but only 25 TDs which is record breaking for futility because he isn't worth anywhere near 25 million a year and we have a long history showing what happens to teams with expensive bad QB contracts. It's disaster.

 

Sorry you disagree and think that Cousins is a top five QB but your wrong. And if we do anchor ourselves with this money hungry guy who barely can compete with the best teams in the NFL and shown that over the past five years I guarantee you that we will regret signing him long term. Unless he somehow can show that with less receiver talent somehow he can produce more next season then he could this season. It won't happen bro, when we lose our receivers and have Cousins throwing nonsense like 250 and one TD and game deciding picks we will all look back on this and say damn why didn't we trade him? 

 

Reminds me me of last season here when I was saying how Matt Jones wasn't good and people would attack me for that opinion.

 

Different opinions are what forums are for. I never said anything negative to you and I wouldn't, have your beliefs I don't care just don't come at me like that.