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

[Taylor703]

9 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

I don't think this the dumbest argument in the history of this board, but it is the most pointless. Congratulations to you both.

Come on LKB. There's no need for your drive-by comments. I hardly ever engage in conversations with you due to this. Enjoy your day. 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I regret nothing.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

5 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

I regret nothing.

 

It's one of your redeeming qualities lol...(and I'm being serious, too).

[Birdlives]

37 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

 

1. If Cousins gets tagged next year, he's in the exact same position he is now except with $85 million in the bank. He would still be a year away from entering free agency in his prime. If I'm his agent, I welcome that because instead of $100 million over three years, I'm getting $150 million over 4 years.

 

2. The Redskins have no leverage to trade Cousins until he signs a long-term deal.

 

 

Cool with me, you're still playing for me for the next 2 years while I resolve the QB position knowing I'll lose you.

 

If I'm lucky, someone gets impatient and signs you to an offer sheet next year and I get a couple of picks in the bargain to boot.

 

Meanwhile you're stuck here in audition mode.

[Tsailand]

8 hours ago, PartyPosse said:

Take away the first 2 games and his numbers were bad. You dont get benched for Colt by being mediocre or better.

 

Yup, he had a poor three-and-a-half game stretch.  Getting benched for Colt over that says more about Gruden/Redskins than it does about Kirk.

 

 

2 hours ago, Taylor703 said:

Thats true. It still doesn't refute what I said though. And it's not like I even said anything negative about him. The Redskins team passing records were horribly mediocre. 

 

They weren't mediocre; they were ****ing awful. And now they are good.  Jay Schroeder's 4109 yard season (from 30 years ago!) would put us 28th among franchises.  Kirk's 4917 yard season puts us 9th.

 

 

49 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

I honestly don't think Manning ever had this much power in a contract negotiation, because the franchise tag in his case would have actually been LESS than his true value. That's one of the key factors here.

 

That applies here also.  Kirk got tagged for 20 last year, but on the open market would have gone for 21 or maybe 22 to a desperate team.  He's tagged for 24 this year, and on the open market the bidding would start at 26.

 

So, one way to look at it is we are getting a slight discount if he plays on the tag.  Another way to look at it is that we could have had a much bigger discount if we'd signed him for 20 long term last year, or a ridiculous discount if we'd signed him for about 15 long term back in October 2015.

 

Another factor is that if we make him play on the tag again, he will walk next year.  The funny thing is, long term contracts are supposed to provide security to the player, but here it is the team who needs the security of a long-term deal.  Kirk already has the security of $44M in the bank, and a long term deal is just betting against himself.

 

QBs the current era are not like the other 21 positions on the field.  The good ones play into their mid-late 30s.  Even when they have a season-ending injury, they take a year off and come back to play another five or ten years. Kirk can afford to wait.  If he gets tagged again for $34.5M next year, that's fine, he'll make more in 2018 than most players make in their entire careers.  He'll still only be 30 when he hits free agency in 2019, so teams will offer him full value, knowing he can play out a five year contract and maybe another three years after that.

[SkinssRvA]

Because Cousins signed the FT this year there is virtually no shot he ever gets tagged again, by any team.  So that's not a likely scenario.  Cousins holds all the cards being on the FT.  Any team who wants to trade for him would have to get Kirk's buy-in on a LTD.  The only place he'd sign a LTD is in SF with Kyle or, potentially, here.  Personally, I think Kirk is a top 10 QB and should be signed here for a LTD.  We can finally have stability and our FO is doubling down on their past poor performances.  

[PartyPosse]

1 hour ago, MassSkinsFan said:

 

This is the gospel!!! 

 

If we make one or two changes on the OL to upgrade our run blocking, suddenly the RZ problems will go away. The RZ problem is not just a Kirk Cousins problem - it's an Offense problem.

In other words, all the good stuff on offense is because of Kirk, but all the bad stuff on offense is everyone else's fault but Kirk's.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

8 minutes ago, Tsailand said:

 

 

 

QBs the current era are not like the other 21 positions on the field.  The good ones play into their mid-late 30s.  Even when they have a season-ending injury, they take a year off and come back to play another five or ten years. Kirk can afford to wait.  If he gets tagged again for $34.5M next year, that's fine, he'll make more in 2018 than most players make in their entire careers.  He'll still only be 30 when he hits free agency in 2019, so teams will offer him full value, knowing he can play out a five year contract and maybe another three years after that.

 

Yea, this has really proven how ineffective the franchise tag is when it comes into controlling rights to QBs.

 

One of the reasons you use it on a star cornerback is that the odds are actually pretty good that he is going to rapidly fall off a cliff. Even receivers have a pretty narrow window. Your value can drop 50 percent in a season.

 

Meanwhile, Tony Romo is 36 and is primarily composed of plastic Trapper Keeper covers at this point. He'll probably get a 3 year deal and $20+ million from someone.

 

Kirk can just keeping riding out these franchise tags for as long as he wants. And if something truly catastrophic happens, he still has $50 million in the bank.

[Est.1974]

Kirks got them by the balls. Not sure how it can be seen any other way. 

 

Will be interesting to see how much his agent cleans us out for. Although for some reason I think we may get off 'lightly' in the circumstances considering he could totally screw us over.

[PartyPosse]

11 minutes ago, Tsailand said:

Yup, he had a poor three-and-a-half game stretch.  Getting benched for Colt over that says more about Gruden/Redskins than it does about Kirk.

No, it says that, like every opportunity he had to be starter, he got progressively worse. His first game starting he beat a "potent" Jacksonville team (who I believe were in the midst of giving up 40+ points in  5 straight games or something like that), started strong against Philly before throwing that brutal INT late in the game to seal it for Philly and then save the Seattle game was downright awful. Even the most optimistic Kirk fan would say he was no better than 50/50 in terms of good to bad performances and they were steadily getting worse. You guys joked about my "take away his first two games comment" but the reality is in 4 games after Philly he had 5TD 9INT and 2 fumbles lost. Many discount what he did his first three years as spot starting because he didn't have time to gel with the starters and practice with them but he had essentially 2 months of working with them in this scenario and looked more and more disoriented the more time he got with them.

 

the reality is there are two Kirks - the good one and the not so good. We never know which one is gonna show up.

[Tsailand]

7 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

Yea, this has really proven how ineffective the franchise tag is when it comes into controlling rights to QBs.

 

Yah maybe that's why everyone (except the ****ing garbage fire Redskins) extends their QBs before they hit the final year of their contracts.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

Meanwhile, Tony Romo is 36 and is primarily composed of plastic Trapper Keeper covers at this point. He'll probably get a 3 year deal and $20+ million from someone.

 

Maybe us!

 

[RWJ]

11 hours ago, Tsailand said:

 

I don't get it.  TK said we have offered $23 mill on average a year.  We are close to signing KC to a LTD, IMO.  No other QB will be guiding this team on opening day accept KC.  I fully expect a deal to get done soon. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Chris Russell, of all people, taking a stab at the "Kirk has all the control" contrarian viewpoint lol...

 

The Redskins Make a Power-Play!

 

Make no mistake about this: While many were claiming that Kirk Cousins was completely in control, we kept trying to remind everyone that the Redskins had option and some control to, depending on various circumstances.

[...]Enter the exclusive franchise tag for Kirk Cousins and more than one full day ahead of the deadline.

So why would all of this happen? For a number of reasons.

The Redskins made their first true public and for that matter private, expression of affection for Kirk Cousins.

They said at the Super Bowl they wanted him to stay and that he would be the quarterback and took a huge step towards making sure that happened.

In other words, they backed up rhetoric with action. A good move and a good step, one that was appreciated from the Cousins camp.

Again, words mean nothing and action means everything. This move does not guarantee anything at all, but it is a major step in the right direction.

By doing so, the Redskins also re-gain control of the situation. Kirk Cousins is not allowed to talk formally with any teams on the market unless the Redskins provide permission. It’s simple. They control the next step. This was the only way they could get some leverage and power back unless Cousins has signed his non-exclusive tender quickly.

He may have. He may not have. The Redskins weren’t willing to risk it so because it cost them absolutely nothing in terms of cap dollars, they chose to control the situation and essentially force Cousins to sign the tender. He’ll do that shortly.

The Redskins continued their power-play with some sharp passing and an Alex Ovechkin type blast in this way: By taking Cousins off the market and by very likely leaking a public position to Ian Rapoport of NFL Media and to Mike Florio of ProFootballTalk.com on Tuesday afternoon.

I can’t say for sure but I know how Bruce Allen works. I know how that organization works. Rapoport first reported that the Redskins would not trade Kirk Cousins at all. The situation was done. That may be true, but Rapoport would likely only say that, if he was told that. By who, is the exact question. 

Florio, soon after, reported that the Redskins would have to be blown away and receive and RG 3 like haul.

Without knowing for sure, but knowing how the business works, that sounds like Florio making a phone call to somebody he is in good standing with and asking essentially if Rapoport’s stance is correct. The person who told Florio this information probably realized that it was completely to the Redskins advantage to ask for the moon and make it publicly known that the Redskins aren’t closed for business.

Why is this important? Well – here we go. The Redskins are apparently going to do what they feel is right and fair to try and keep Cousins. They will reportedly meet in a few days formally with the Redskins to try and exchange contract numbers.

The Redskins will find out then, if they don’t know already, what Cousins’ camp wants, needs and expects to sign a long-term deal. The two sides have talked but not had negotiations.

Once updated numbers and official proposals are exchanged – the Redskins will assess how far apart both sides are (and I was told a considerable gap still exists as of Tuesday) and they can make a decision on the next step.

Do they continue trying to sign him to a long-term deal or do they try and trade him?

Wait – I thought they were not going to trade him under any circumstances? Or – wait – was it only for an RG 3 type haul?

Here’s the power play blast from the high line of the face-off circle where Ovechkin normally camps out: The Redskins, by generating these blustery headlines to national platforms that will carry their possible message and propaganda around – have forced quarterback starved teams to now re-assess what they are willing to pay for Cousins.

Those teams that need quarterbacks (49ers, Browns, Bears, Jets) must be thinking – “Oh S$%#!” – we might be stuck because Cousins is no longer a free agent and certainly has no control over the situation for 2017.

The Redskins have complete control for 2017 at least and you must pay their price if you are desperate enough.

When you combine that with Adam Schefter’s report on Wednesday morning that Patriots quarterback Jimmy Garappolo will not be available, the Patriots and Redskins both just made these quarterback needy teams much more desperate than they were Tuesday morning.

That’s called a 5-on-3 advantage, my friends.

The quarterbacks in the draft are shaky at best and will provide no immediate relief according to many experts, and now apparently the two best NFL proven/ready quarterbacks are not available.

Unless you are willing to pay a price greater than you were willing to pay 24+ hours ago, when both were still “available.”

One final benefit to the power-play moves the Redskins made on Tuesday is this: By taking Cousins off the market again (which is what he wanted much more than the franchise tag), it could create doubt and a desire to not tempt fate again on Cousins and his agent, Mike McCartney’s part.

Cousins knows that a catastrophic injury would damage his overall worth and value. He also knows if he struggles and things fall apart, he could cost himself a bunch of money.

Cousins has control in that he doesn’t have to sign a long-term deal but he also has to know that quarterback needy teams might fill the desirable spots (San Francisco) before he can get through another full season.
 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

3 minutes ago, RWJ said:

I don't get it.  TK said we have offered $23 mill on average a year.  We are close to signing KC to a LTD, IMO.  No other QB will be guiding this team on opening day accept KC.  I fully expect a deal to get done soon. 

 

I doubt Kirk and his agent give two ****s about the average yearly pay here.

 

It's the guaranteed dollars that are bound to be an issue here. No one is saying how far apart they are here.

[RWJ]

Just now, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

I doubt Kirk and his agent give two ****s about the average yearly pay here.

 

It's the guaranteed dollars that are bound to be an issue here. No one is saying how far apart they are here.

The most important aspect of the contract, I agree but all that factors in and I believe that they STILL strike a deal soon.  Like someone posted earlier in this thread I think it happen while they are at the combine this weekend.  Again, JMO.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

5 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Here’s the power play blast from the high line of the face-off circle where Ovechkin normally camps out: The Redskins, by generating these blustery headlines to national platforms that will carry their possible message and propaganda around – have forced quarterback starved teams to now re-assess what they are willing to pay for Cousins.

Those teams that need quarterbacks (49ers, Browns, Bears, Jets) must be thinking – “Oh S$%#!” – we might be stuck because Cousins is no longer a free agent and certainly has no control over the situation for 2017.


 

 

1. The minute real trade talks start, those teams know that they can simply bid on Cousins a year from now without giving up any assets.

2. None of those teams would consider making a trade without a long-term deal from Cousins. That shifts all the leverage back to Cousins.

 

1 minute ago, RWJ said:

The most important aspect of the contract, I agree but all that factors in and I believe that they STILL strike a deal soon.  Like someone posted earlier in this thread I think it happen while they are at the combine this weekend.  Again, JMO.

 

It could certainly happen.

 

But the point of all of this is, the Redskins will have gone from "On the cheap long term deal" to "slightly unconfortable Brock Osweiler deal" to "Peyton Manning in his prime on the open market deal."

 

From a fan perspective, I guess, it is all the same. He will be here.

 

From a cap management perspective, it's kind of a catastrophe.

[PartyPosse]

17 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Cousins has control in that he doesn’t have to sign a long-term deal but he also has to know that quarterback needy teams might fill the desirable spots (San Francisco) before he can get through another full season.

That's actually something interesting to think about. If SF doesn't take a QB at 2 or even one in the second, to me that's a sign that Kirk will eventually be there either this year or next.

[markmills67]

2 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

That's actually something interesting to think about. If SF doesn't take a QB at 2 or even one in the second, to me that's a sign that Kirk will eventually be there either this year or next.

I'm saying that Cousins will have a LTD with the Skins by Monday at the latest, so the 49ers, Brown's and whoever can go find there own franchise QB. 

 

HTTR 

[rick7423]

2 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

Every player has that power....because that's just the power to demand. And even if you want to define it as actual power, there have been many, many players have had that power over the years, just as many, many will have that power in the years to come. So if you want to use that definition of "power" the only accurate statement would be that Cousins is the most powerful player THIS YEAR...

 

I can concede that, or more appropriately, the most powerful player in a long time, although the "power" you described for Peyton Manning was extremely different than what Kirk is flexing atm. IMHO, KC holds much more power to define not only his future, but also those around him in a way that Peyton never did or could.

 

Symantec's really, but an interesting discussion.

[HTTRDynasty]

A caller to Cooley and Kevin's show brought up a good point this morning.  What if the organization thinks Kirk is basically Matt Schaub circa 2009/2010?  I haven't done any sort of detailed comparison, but at first glance, their stats are eerily similar in their first 2 seasons when starting the full season.  Schaub looked like a top QB those years, but then fell back down to earth.  I don't blame the organization from trying to protect themselves from that.  It's why I won't be outraged if we don't give into Kirk's contract demands if he is trying to be the highest paid player in NFL history.

[rick7423]

4 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

A caller to Cooley and Kevin's show brought up a good point this morning.  What if the organization thinks Kirk is basically Matt Schaub circa 2009/2010?  I haven't done any sort of detailed comparison, but at first glance, their stats are eerily similar in their first 2 seasons when starting the full season.  Schaub looked like a top QB those years, but then fell back down to earth.  I don't blame the organization from trying to protect themselves from that.  It's why I won't be outraged if we don't give into Kirk's contract demands if he is trying to be the highest paid player in NFL history.

 

Nah, I see comparisons to Matt Ryan. 2 years ago he was really bad! But the team believed in him and he was able to improve. Look what you get with a good cast around you and a good OC.

 

I am NOT saying KC will take us to SB next year, but I do see similar statistical numbers.

 

If Matt Ryan was on the skins, how many on this board would have wanted his head after his 2015 season?

[Warhead36]

8 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

A caller to Cooley and Kevin's show brought up a good point this morning.  What if the organization thinks Kirk is basically Matt Schaub circa 2009/2010?  I haven't done any sort of detailed comparison, but at first glance, their stats are eerily similar in their first 2 seasons when starting the full season.  Schaub looked like a top QB those years, but then fell back down to earth.  I don't blame the organization from trying to protect themselves from that.  It's why I won't be outraged if we don't give into Kirk's contract demands if he is trying to be the highest paid player in NFL history.

He could be Schaub sure. But Schaub was still a pretty good QB for a decent bit. And Cousins could just as easily continue to improve and be even better. People seem to be stuck on this notion that he's hit his ceiling at age 28. QBs often don't really get rolling until after age 30.

[HTTRDynasty]

Yea, @rick7423 and @Warhead36.  I think he has the potential to have a better career than Schaub, and I think it is the more likely scenario, but I also would understand if the short-term success of QBs like Schaub in the past gives the organization reservations about Kirk and his asking price.

[bobandweave]

So we offered him 20 million a year and were rebuffed with "conversation starts at 24 million a year", over 5 years that's a difference of 20 million bucks. Can we split the diff and just sign him already or if not just accept that 20 million is not enough to lose him when your talking 120 million bucks and give it to him, unless that conversation is just starting and if so he's playing us

 

I tend to think unlike some that Kirk's decision will have a direct effect on Free Agency this year. What receiver wants to come here if they know they are going to have to deal with a new QB soon? None if they have options. And with every team having money none will pick us if Kirk's not here unless we grossly overpaid which is a bad idea

 

I get that Kirk may not even sign if we moved up to 24 and  and if so we owe it to ourselves to know that information sooner rather then later. If we move to 24 and he won't sign then I think it means he's just gonna play us, wait it out this year and get to free agency next offseason and leave. I mean even now he holds all the leverage because if we tried to trade him he can refuse to agree to that other teams long term contract and just wait it out until he decides where he wants to go next year.

 

Not sure why we exclusively tagged a guy who may not even want to be here? I think that was dumb. Should have given his agent leverage to find a trade partner for us and let them feel free so that if the offers come in low he could be signed for less 

 

Offer him 24 a year over 5 and if he won't sign that then dump him for 75 cents on the dollar (first round pick and a lower pick) and move on. We can not afford to see him leave and we not cash in with his value so high and what it means if he were to leave

[bobandweave]

1 hour ago, RWJ said:

TK said we have offered $23 mill on average a year

 

When did this happen? Only thing I've seen anywhere said we offered only 20 a year