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

[Dissident2]

I do think Kirk has made a good deal of progress as far as his mental approach to the game, and he has unquestionably won us some big games due to his clutch performances. I think/hope he will only continue to improve with this. 

 

That said, I do not think he has completely vanquished that spectre from his reputation just yet, at least not enough to call it a "myth," especially due to the way things ended last year. 

 

I got a little bit of "inside info" from someone back in 2014 when he was benched for Colt. Most of this has been reported, too, so it's not like it's groundbreaking news, but one of the main reasons Kirk was benched in favor of Colt was because of his mental response to mistakes. The coaches felt he was not resilient and would let one INT start an avalanche of multiple INTs because he'd start thinking too much and get too tight. It was clear he was the better QB skill-wise, but that mental component was a huge reason why the coaches really lost faith in him back then and did not even think about returning to him after Colt got injured. 

 

To his credit, he recognized that and worked really hard to improve, and like I said, he made obvious progress, some of which this thread clearly shows. I go back to the Eagles game in 2015 at Philly. His performance was spectacular there overall, but it wasn't without the asterisk of that completely inexplicable move he made before the half where he took a knee and cost us a chance at at least 3 points. That was the old Kirk flashing again. Last year in the Giants game was the old Kirk flashing again, too, and the fact that this happened in the last game of the season and kept us out of the playoffs makes for a bad most recent memory of him.

 

But when you look at the whole picture, it's clear he's made huge strides in this area. I definitely have faith in him being able to overcome this stigma completely if given the chance here. Still, a big win over the Giants and at least a strong playoff performance, win or lose, would've gone a long way into finally making these choking whispers disappear for good.  Hopefully he gets a chance to finally do that next year for us. 

 

[Gizmo 3squire]

19 minutes ago, markmills67 said:

Even if we sign Cousins on the franchise tag amount  $24m, we will have $40m cap space plus the chance of another $10m plus by releasing some players, there is no reason why we can't sign all our main FA and have $30m plus to sign FA from other teams.

 

HTTR 

 

Oh Okay, I was speaking on a long term signing, in addition to signing the main FA's. Could that still work if say Cousins signs for 5 years 120million w/ $60 guaranteed? In addition to DJax's demands? and signing Garcon and Baker? I feel like one of these would be a casualty. Which is why I was saying that both parties in the LTD discussion should also value team needs.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

2 hours ago, SkinsManNJ said:

My sources say that KC is going to be tagged this and then a sign to be tagged again next year which will bring his guaranteed money up to $78mil over 3yrs including 2018. Smart agent. 

 

I seriously doubt we tag him with the exclusive/non-exclusive tag in 2018, they will not pay him 34 million/yr.  If we go into 2018 and he's not on a LTD, it would be possible that they apply the transition tag on him which would pay him almost 29 million if he signed it and didn't get any offers or sign an offer sheet from another team and we didn't match or let him walk.  

 

 

[HTTRDynasty]

One thing I'm wondering:  I know Scot is good buddies with the Raiders GM, Reggie McKenzie.  Word is that Carr will be getting an extension before the start of next season.  I'm 99% sure that those two have discussed the contracts of Cousins/Carr with each other.  What if McKenzie is telling Scot there's no way they pay Carr Andrew Luck money?  What if Cousins and his agent are asking for more than Luck?  Should the Redskins pay more for a player who is 3 years older than a guy who was in league MVP discussions this past season (Carr)?  There are so many nuances to this that we just don't know.  The FO has so much more information than us on this.  I'm willing to sit back, wait, and let it play out before complaining the front office isn't doing enough. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

There's a CSN article today which summarizes the decisions that the Redskins are likely making about the QB position. In short, the final sentence to me boils this entire debate down to the core issue: 

 

Now, Washington must decide if they should pay Cousins like some of the best in the league, or if the team can get 80 to 90 percent of the production at a fraction of the cost.

 

The more I think about it, the more I think this is what McCloughan and others are wrestling with. In some ways, it's deciding whether to put more trust in a player (Cousins) or a coach/system (Gruden). 

 

Here's a link to the article: http://www.csnmidatlantic.com/washington-redskins/questions-emerge-if-colt-mccoy-can-produce-similar-results-lesser-cost-kirk?utm_content=buffer5f5aa&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

 

[NoCalMike]

I don't think Colt McCoy can produce nearly the volume that Kirk can without a lot more mistakes.  The question is whether you think Colt can do "enough" with the talent pool on this team in order to keep this team a'float for a season or two while they draft a young QB and get that guy ready.

 

Or....perhaps look to free agency for that purpose.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

4 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

I don't think Colt McCoy can produce nearly the volume that Kirk can without a lot more mistakes.  The question is whether you think Colt can do "enough" with the talent pool on this team in order to keep this team a'float for a season or two while they draft a young QB and get that guy ready.

 

Or....perhaps look to free agency for that purpose.

 

So, I don't think that's the question. 

 

To me, the only way you struggle with this decision is if you believe that the system trumps the QB. So, in short, you can plug and play with several guys to get similar production. If you are just bridging the gap from Cousins to some undefined next QB, then just pay Cousins. 

 

Again, I think it's possible that McCloughan (or someone) believes that they can get 80% of the production for 10% of the cost. If (HUGE "if") that's actually true, then playing McCoy and letting Cousins walk is clearly the correct choice. It's also very consistent with McCloughan's mentality in Seattle and San Francisco. 

[LightningBuggs]

26 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

.....To his credit, he recognized that and worked really hard to improve, and like I said, he made obvious progress, some of which this thread clearly shows. I go back to the Eagles game in 2015 at Philly. His performance was spectacular there overall, but it wasn't without the asterisk of that completely inexplicable move he made before the half where he took a knee and cost us a chance at at least 3 points. That was the old Kirk flashing again. Last year in the Giants game was the old Kirk flashing again, too, and the fact that this happened in the last game of the season and kept us out of the playoffs makes for a bad most recent memory of him.

 

But when you look at the whole picture, it's clear he's made huge strides in this area. I definitely have faith in him being able to overcome this stigma completely if given the chance here. Still, a big win over the Giants and at least a strong playoff performance, win or lose, would've gone a long way into finally making these choking whispers disappear for good.  Hopefully he gets a chance to finally do that next year for us. 

 

 

Excellent post, Dissident.  Very fair and balanced all around.  Well done.

[Gizmo 3squire]

18 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

One thing I'm wondering:  I know Scot is good buddies with the Raiders GM, Reggie McKenzie.  Word is that Carr will be getting an extension before the start of next season.  I'm 99% sure that those two have discussed the contracts of Cousins/Carr with each other.  What if McKenzie is telling Scot there's no way they pay Carr Andrew Luck money?  What if Cousins and his agent are asking for more than Luck?  Should the Redskins pay more for a player who is 3 years older than a guy who was in league MVP discussions this past season (Carr)?  There are so many nuances to this that we just don't know.  The FO has so much more information than us on this.  I'm willing to sit back, wait, and let it play out before complaining the front office isn't doing enough. 

 

 

My sentiment exactly.

[purbeast]

15 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

There's a CSN article today which summarizes the decisions that the Redskins are likely making about the QB position. In short, the final sentence to me boils this entire debate down to the core issue: 

 

Now, Washington must decide if they should pay Cousins like some of the best in the league, or if the team can get 80 to 90 percent of the production at a fraction of the cost.

 

The more I think about it, the more I think this is what McCloughan and others are wrestling with. In some ways, it's deciding whether to put more trust in a player (Cousins) or a coach/system (Gruden). 

 

Here's a link to the article: http://www.csnmidatlantic.com/washington-redskins/questions-emerge-if-colt-mccoy-can-produce-similar-results-lesser-cost-kirk?utm_content=buffer5f5aa&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

 

But what are they saving their money for?  That is what I do not understand and nobody has really answered.  What is their end game?  To save 10-15 million dollars over 5 years?  In the grand scheme of things, how does that help them if it means they are losing a franchise QB and back into the QB shuffle of the past 2 decades?

3 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

So, I don't think that's the question. 

 

To me, the only way you struggle with this decision is if you believe that the system trumps the QB. So, in short, you can plug and play with several guys to get similar production. If you are just bridging the gap from Cousins to some undefined next QB, then just pay Cousins. 

 

Again, I think it's possible that McCloughan (or someone) believes that they can get 80% of the production for 10% of the cost. If (HUGE "if") that's actually true, then playing McCoy and letting Cousins walk is clearly the correct choice. It's also very consistent with McCloughan's mentality in Seattle and San Francisco. 

The system clearly isn't a plug-and-play system or else RG3 would still be here.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

19 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

One thing I'm wondering:  I know Scot is good buddies with the Raiders GM, Reggie McKenzie.  Word is that Carr will be getting an extension before the start of next season.  I'm 99% sure that those two have discussed the contracts of Cousins/Carr with each other.  What if McKenzie is telling Scot there's no way they pay Carr Andrew Luck money?  What if Cousins and his agent are asking for more than Luck?  Should the Redskins pay more for a player who is 3 years older than a guy who was in league MVP discussions this past season (Carr)?  There are so many nuances to this that we just don't know.  The FO has so much more information than us on this.  I'm willing to sit back, wait, and let it play out before complaining the front office isn't doing enough. 

 

Different situations.  Just because the Raiders might not pay Carr Luck money doesn't mean anything in negotiations with Kirk.  You are also talking about giving Carr an extension before the final year in his rookie contract with a GM that wants to get him locked up well before they would have to go through what we went through.  Kirk has already had tag applied, about to have it applied twice and will get paid somewhere eventually.

 

Also, Carr started every game since he was drafted until he got injured and missed two games this year (week 17 and the wc game) and he has put up good numbers every year and improved.  Raiders will pay him 22-24 million/yr.  Kirk didn't get the full-time gig until his 4th year, team wanted to make sure it wasn't a fluke, so they tagged him.  With Carr, they have three years worth of playing time to know they want him there for a long time, so they will get him extended before 2017 starts and he will never see the FT unless it's on his 3rd contract.

[markmills67]

24 minutes ago, Gizmo 3squire said:

 

Oh Okay, I was speaking on a long term signing, in addition to signing the main FA's. Could that still work if say Cousins signs for 5 years 120million w/ $60 guaranteed? In addition to DJax's demands? and signing Garcon and Baker? I feel like one of these would be a casualty. Which is why I was saying that both parties in the LTD discussion should also value team needs.

If the powers that be of the Redskins don't know by now whether Cousins is there man they never will be, what difference  is 2 more weeks, or 2 more months going to make? He has been our starter for 2 years now. I think we all realise that he is not a top 5 QB at the moment but he's the closest we've had in 30 years. Don't blow this Skins front office and give Cousins a LTD. 

 

HTTR 

[HOF44]

8 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Again, I think it's possible that McCloughan (or someone) believes that they can get 80% of the production for 10% of the cost. If (HUGE "if") that's actually true, then playing McCoy and letting Cousins walk is clearly the correct choice. It's also very consistent with McCloughan's mentality in Seattle and San Francisco. 

If that's the case they better be locking Gruden up long term.  The NFL is much more a players league than a coaches.  You have to have solid coaching, but the quality of players is most times the determining factor of success. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

5 minutes ago, purbeast said:

But what are they saving their money for?  That is what I do not understand and nobody has really answered.  What is their end game?  To save 10-15 million dollars over 5 years?  In the grand scheme of things, how does that help them if it means they are losing a franchise QB and back into the QB shuffle of the past 2 decades?

The system clearly isn't a plug-and-play system or else RG3 would still be here.

Well, if (again, a big IF) McCoy is a solution, they are saving $20M per season. And, I would hope that their plan is to continue building a team that McCloughan wants (physical, fast, and much better on defense). That is where the money needs to go. 

 

I don't think Griffin is a good case study on the system - he hasn't shown the aptitude to learn a pro system at all. By plug and play, I think you'd have to assume some level of NFL QB ability (not physical, but mental). 

[NoCalMike]

I also think it matters though, when it comes to production, as to whether they think Cousins is the caliber of QB that will elevate the level of lesser skill position players. Does he have those intangibles to allow the front office to get wrapped up in a likely record-breaking deal, if it means not signing high profile free agents at other positions.  You pay a guy like Rodgers and Brady what they make because some of us could be lining up at WR and they would still produce. 

[HTTRDynasty]

7 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

Different situations.  Just because the Raiders might not pay Carr Luck money doesn't mean anything in negotiations with Kirk.  You are also talking about giving Carr an extension before the final year in his rookie contract with a GM that wants to get him locked up well before they would have to go through what we went through.  Kirk has already had tag applied, about to have it applied twice and will get paid somewhere eventually.

 

Also, Carr started every game since he was drafted until he got injured and missed two games this year (week 17 and the wc game) and he has put up good numbers every year and improved.  Raiders will pay him 22-24 million/yr.  Kirk didn't get the full-time gig until his 4th year, team wanted to make sure it wasn't a fluke, so they tagged him.  With Carr, they have three years worth of playing time to know they want him there for a long time, so they will get him extended before 2017 starts and he will never see the FT unless it's on his 3rd contract.

 

I understand that they are different situations.  However, players are paid for what the franchise thinks they are worth, not for what year they sign their deal in.  You won't see Carr taking less money just because he's not in the last year of his deal yet. 

 

You hear reporters like Keim say that they might pay Cousins more than Luck because that is what QB's are worth now with the cap skyrocketing, not because he's on the verge of his second tag.  If Keim is right, then Carr should get more than Luck.  If McKenzie is telling Scot that they won't pay Carr Luck money, then Keim is obviously wrong about the value of a QB today and Luck was just a special case.  If I'm the Redskins, I don't pay Kirk more than Carr is going to get.  It makes no sense for them when you compare the past play, current play, and potential of the two QBs.

[zoony]

Kirk might not be Top 5, but he is good enough to win in this league, period

 

go back to the WP archives and see what they were saying about Brad Johnson in 2000. The same things they are saying about Kirk now. Brad was allowed to walk and won a Super Bowl with Tampa

 

The most important thing about Kirk, however, is that he is getting better. People forget what Drew Brees looked like after his second full year starting. Or Ben R, or for that matter, Tom Brady. 

 

Call it overpaying, call it whatever you want. This is a QB league and we have nothing even CLOSE to a better option. 

 

It will be an all time blunder to let him walk or trade him. You can disagree if you want but you will be wrong. End of discussion 

[Butters20]

41 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

One thing I'm wondering:  I know Scot is good buddies with the Raiders GM, Reggie McKenzie.  Word is that Carr will be getting an extension before the start of next season.  I'm 99% sure that those two have discussed the contracts of Cousins/Carr with each other.  What if McKenzie is telling Scot there's no way they pay Carr Andrew Luck money?  What if Cousins and his agent are asking for more than Luck?  Should the Redskins pay more for a player who is 3 years older than a guy who was in league MVP discussions this past season (Carr)?  There are so many nuances to this that we just don't know.  The FO has so much more information than us on this.  I'm willing to sit back, wait, and let it play out before complaining the front office isn't doing enough. 

I believe that would be collusion, to discuss contracts with the intent of setting price

[Taylor703]

1 minute ago, zoony said:

Kirk might not be Top 5, but he is good enough to win in this league, period

 

go back to the WP archives and see what they were saying about Brad Johnson in 2000. The same things they are saying about Kirk now. Brad was allowed to walk and won a Super Bowl with Tampa

 

The most important thing about Kirk, however, is that he is getting better. People forget what Drew Brees looked like after his second full year starting. Or Ben R, or for that matter, Tom Brady. 

 

Call it overpaying, call it whatever you want. This is a QB league and we have nothing even CLOSE to a better option. 

 

It will be an all time blunder to let him walk or trade him. You can disagree if you want but you will be wrong. End of discussion 

 

Brad wasn't the highest paid player in the league and Tampa bay had one of the best defenses ever. Those two things cannot be left out of the discussion when bringing up Brad Johnsons departure in comparison to Kirk Cousins. It would be akin to blaming Tampa Bay for letting Trent Dilfer go because he won a super bowl with the Ravens. 

[Hazel-Ra]

4 minutes ago, zoony said:

 

Call it overpaying, call it whatever you want. This is a QB league and we have nothing even CLOSE to a better option. 

 

It will be an all time blunder to let him walk or trade him. You can disagree if you want but you will be wrong. End of discussion 

 

Boom! Go ahead and /thread! Pretty much where I've stood since the 24 hour "cooling off" period after the NY game.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

3 minutes ago, zoony said:

It will be an all time blunder to let him walk or trade him. You can disagree if you want but you will be wrong. End of discussion 

This.

 

I entirely understand the sentiments that he doesn't deserve to one of the highest paid players in the league, that he'll never be an All-Pro, and all that kind of stuff. 

 

But at the end of the day, this is how qbs get paid and you don't have to have an all pro to be competitive and win in this league.  There is no way this team can let Kirk walk and be better for it in the next few seasons.  There is no better option.  Spare me the "we can spend all the Kirk money on defense..." BS if you really think that makes us competitive with freaking Colt McCoy leading the offense.  An offense mind you that won't be littered with the talent it has the past few years.  I'm all for freedom of speech, but anyone touting that nonsense deserves the ban hammer.

[Birdlives]

Just wanted to chime in on the conversation and offer a point.

 

It is counterintuitive to say that signing Kirk to a LTD will prohibit us from having space to sign free agents. It's actually the opposite.

 

If we sign Kirk long term, the annual cap hit will be spread out and cost us less year to year. If we don't sign him we will have to take the same tack as last year and carry $ over to next year.

 

Look at it this way, had we signed Kirk last year, we would have had extra $ to sign other FA as he would've cost less against the cap that year, plus, we wouldn't have to protect our interest in him this year.

 

We carried over $15mil that could've been spent on upgrading the defense last year because we needed a position of strength in case we had to tag him again this year and next year. We have to pay him more in 1 year than a LTD would've required, plus, if we don't have the cap space this year and next to franchise him, another team can get Kirk on a deal that perhaps we cannot afford to match. If other teams know this, they gain leverage in negotiating our compensation. I believe, as misguided as the guy was, some tv personality pointed it out. Wrongly, but still the point does have some factual basis, just not his basis. We need to keep pushing money forward so we can keep tagging him until we can't, i.e. 2019.

 

As SF knows they can't break the bank on Cousins, its unlikely they'll even try to sign him. The compensation is too high (2 #1's), and, they will in effect just be negotiating on our behalf as we can then just match whatever offer sheet he signs. We've got the money. We need to keep the money available.

 

Taking this down the road, if we can't sign Kirk again this year and he's playing on the tag again, its very likely to me that we once again play conservative in FA, perhaps sign 1 marquee player and a bunch of JAGS like last year and then carry over more $ into next year to create leverage to again tag Kirk. Whether it would be transition or franchise would then be the question. I don't doubt though, that they will have at least the franchise tag $ plus extra next year to keep the pressure on.

 

At that point, Kirk will have to wait until 2019 to move on, he'll be 30, and we'll take our 3rd rd compensatory pick. We'll also have 3 drafts to address the QB position.

 

Hopefully that all makes sense. Anyways, that's what I think is happening here.

 

Edit: wow, did not know this. I was verifying Kirks age. He'll be 31 heading into 2019 season. I also did not know he shares my son's birthday! 08/19.

[RemoveSnyder]

15 hours ago, markmills67 said:

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

 

The two 1st's apply to the non exclusive franchise tag. Trade is a separate scenario, further steps down the line. 

[Commander Adama]

If he doesn't want to be here I don't understand keeping him. Get what we can for him so we don't walk away with nothing. I like him as a Quarterback but the team needs to come first.

[Rskins06]

Whether you like Kirk or don't like Kirk (I like Kirk), this is becoming a huge **** sandwhich and can go bad either way!  This story of him being traded to SF seems to be getting more steam every day, whether true or not, we will soon find out.

 

That being said, would you do whatever it took to sign Kirk?  Would you pay him $25m a season?  Is he worth being paid as the highest paid QB/player in the league?  He won't sign ANYTHING until he is tagged, I guess that would bean 23.9m is the starting point for yearly compensation.  What if the organization offers 21 0r 22m a season and he says no.  As an organization, what do you do?  Basically, when do you say "No".  There are so many "what ifs" which seem closer to reality than we think. 

 

I think if you tag him again and no LTD is done, you have no choice but to draft his replacement.  You will not be able to tag him again next year and you most certainly aren't going to pay him $34M a season.  So, you franchise him already knowing you are only getting 1 year from him and know you are only going to get a 4th round pick (compensatory).

 

I am starting to think the best option WOULD be to franchise him, trade him to SF or Cleveland for their first round picks, draft a QB, sign a Veteran FA to compete with Colt McCoy to start next year.  Load up the defense this year and groom your rookie to start next year. 

 

I like Kirk, however, I don't like Kirk enough to hold back the organization in the years ahead.