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

[Morneblade]

7 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

You know, I neither have the emotional capacity nor the energy to really argue about the following, so you likely won't hear more from me on this other than this post. Part of that is I sincerely hope those on the opposite side of this are right, and that my feelings towards those at the top of the organization are unfounded. I don't say that to be patronizing nor condescending, it's truly sincere.

 

......

It's about the fact that Dan and Allen had just hired this guy about 8 months before to do THIS SPECIFIC JOB. That's his title. He's the football guy brought in, by them, to say and do things like this. They could've disagreed, and that would've been perfectly reasonable... heck, even I would've been shocked at the time and I've always believed in Kirk, but they should've let him do the friggin job he was hired to do and AT LEAST MAKE AN OFFER. They were already standing in the way? Really? Al-friggin-ready? 

 

How that's not a massive problem to some, I don't know.

......

 

Anyways... just get this friggin right. Sign him to a LTD, hire a legit GM (after a legit search), and move on. For the love of God, just do the right thing, it's not that hard. 

 

Edited for length

 

I agree with everything you said here. I go back a long way, being a redskins fan. Back to the 70's, when the team was "ok". Not great, but you felt pride in that you had a organization that wasn't a cluster****. I loved the blue collar approach. I loved the "over the hill gang". Had some really good years, and some that were just ok. But the team never looked like this. It always looked like it was making good moves. And treating people well. You don't get that sense anymore.

[LightningBuggs]

9 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

But I think people are missing the forest for the trees when discussing this recent stuff from Breer regarding Scot and, in particular, him wanting to offer Kirk an extension before 2015.

 

If it's true... it's not about whether Kirk would've accepted or not. It's not about whether that would've even been feasible at the time.

 

It's about the fact that Dan and Allen had just hired this guy about 8 months before to do THIS SPECIFIC JOB. That's his title. He's the football guy brought in, by them, to say and do things like this. They could've disagreed, and that would've been perfectly reasonable... heck, even I would've been shocked at the time and I've always believed in Kirk, but they should've let him do the friggin job he was hired to do and AT LEAST MAKE AN OFFER. They were already standing in the way? Really? Al-friggin-ready? 

 

Completely agree.  This is indefensible too.  And it's the opposite of what the organization publicly said the day Scot was hired.

 

But I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by that.  Shame on me for thinking the front office had finally figured out how to function like a normal NFL team.  I won't make that mistake ever again.

[Est.1974]

16 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Signing Kirk soon IMO would be very well received.  A PR grand slam for a team that arguably needs some good PR.  Cooley more or less has said the same -- signing Kirk would build good will back quickly with the fan base.  

 

Agree, this is my take. This is how you would get the deal done to move the organisation forward. Sign Kirk, heck bring an ILB or DT in too, and the whole scene changes very quickly.

[TSO]

5 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

I agree with everything you said here. I go back a long way, being a redskins fan. Back to the 70's, when the team was "ok". Not great, but you felt pride in that you had a organization that wasn't a cluster****. I loved the blue collar approach. I loved the "over the hill gang". Had some really good years, and some that were just ok. But the team never looked like this. It always looked like it was making good moves. And treating people well. You don't get that sense anymore.

 

Hate that I agree with you right now, lol. Can't bring myself to "like" your post even. Hope we're dead wrong.  

 

4 minutes ago, LightningBuggs said:

Completely agree.  This is indefensible too.  And it's the opposite of what the organization publicly said the day Scot was hired.

 

But I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by that.  Shame on me for thinking the front office had finally figured out how to function like a normal NFL team.  I won't make that mistake ever again.

 

I think they were sincere. I think the structure was sound initially, outside of that one gaffe with the Cousins' extension were it to be true, and probably throughout all of the 2015 season. I think things started to deteriorate a little bit last offseason and then got progressively worse. And it is likely that Scot's personal demons in that deterioration played a significant role, unfortunately. 

 

So don't be ashamed. The media was totally on board as well. I don't think we were fooled. Not at first. And there were tangible results. Let's not forget the team has had more success these past two years than in two decades. 

 

Anyway, back to Kirk guys. My post was mostly about him that's why I put it here.  

[elkabong82]

35 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Agree and it will be a very small segment IMO.   The local and national media take is overwhelmingly in favor of getting a deal done and some use the fact that they haven't gotten a LTC done as a key part of the Redskins off season dysfunction.  Whether that's fair or unfair that's a different story.   Signing Kirk soon IMO would be very well received.  A PR grand slam for a team that arguably needs some good PR.  Cooley more or less has said the same -- signing Kirk would build good will back quickly with the fan base.  

 

Definitely agree, but knowing our local media I would still fully expect some, especially from the ComPost, to take the negative angle that we should have waited until after the dradft so we could entertain all draft trades, because maybe somebody would have given up something crazy, and then people on here will forget all the impatience and wanting a deal now and go along with that narrative. It happens all the time with every story and corresponding negative slant.

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

This isn't on the media it's on our FO

[bobandweave]

52 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I've been listening to just about everyone under the sun talk abut the Kirk contract situation.  If I had to pick a theme that's common in the criticism its this those incompetent dummies the Redskins can't even lock in their own franchise QB and at best they keep him on a one year rental.  The idea that the media will turn on the Redskins by saying they blew it by signing Kirk long term because the timing was wrong -- that's a wild supposition IMO.  At the very least they'd look hypocritical considering the common refrain is the Redskins won't be able to get it done because either Kirk doesn't want to be here or Bruce is too cheap.  Actually getting a contract done would disprove both ideas -- it would be IMO a likely PR blockbuster.  

 

But frankly I don't care how well the media receives it.   Make it happen.  Love it if it happened before the draft.  Love it if it happened today.

 

I don't agree, take the Pryor signing. In a dire situation with both our starting Wr's having left, we signed him in a home run move. Everyone knows he was younger then both the guys that left and is an up and comer in the league. Should have been a 100% positive reaction to the move from everyone, but what did everyone say? Grade A+ move but why only one year??? That's been said by everyone and paints a negative slant on that signing. Everyone is the media either through print, online, podcast, wherever. Not everyone as in including the fans of the team

 

We aren't a team like the Patriots who after the moves they make reporters and the media says A+ move and there is no But. We are always treated to the But's. It will be no different with Cousins when he signs, won't happen before the draft imo these always come down to the wire and God help us all if it's not done before the deadline because it will carry with us every single time the teams mentioned anywhere.

 

That's our teams plight in life. I think part of why that is always present is due to multiple factors including dislike of the owner, having not won a championship in 25 years, political, past disappointments, part of it is just these guys wanting to be negative, part of it is habit, part of it is its easy way to describe this team, part of it is fandom to other teams. Ever seen a reporter spin something positive about us and the reaction it gets from on lookers? Either on TV or elsewhere? The reporter is usually insulted for being positive about this team unless he's a reporter reporting only to the fans of the team. Too many times when a reporter is speaking to the country they can't be positive about us, the reporters even slam each other when that happens.

 

The negativity surrounding this team is always present and if someone can't see that then they just aren't paying attention. This is undeniable and those guys saying the Buts don't offer retractions, they don't care if they look hypocritical, they just move from story to story and ignore what they said before.  

 

Now I agree with you that I don't care how the media thinks or what they say about anything about this team too. We can revisit the negative spin angle when he is signed, it's coming just not gonna happen any time soon and we all just have to be patient

[Skinsinparadise]

21 minutes ago, elkabong82 said:

 

Definitely agree, but knowing our local media I would still fully expect some, especially from the ComPost, to take the negative angle that we should have waited until after the dradft so we could entertain all draft trades, because maybe somebody would have given up something crazy, and then people on here will forget all the impatience and wanting a deal now and go along with that narrative. It happens all the time with every story and corresponding negative slant.

 

I am with you, that someone will always give a negative take in the soup.  On the Kirk front for example if they sign him to a 24-25 million a year contract, some like Casserly will say they overpaid.  But by and large, I believe it will be tremendously well received by most because again I'd characterize the undertone of most of the Kirk story as the Redskins are a clown show -- Kirk doesn't want to come back because of the clown show or Bruce just doesn't realize that he's not going to haggle his way into bargain and will lose his franchise QB in doing so.    

 

Bargain shopping seems to be Bruce's strength and his modus operandi.  Bruce knows how to play the flea market game and is good at it.  Keim's FA article today referenced his approach in that matter and how it influences the team's FA approach.  My fear is Bruce is out of his element on the Kirk contract talks.   Sometimes you don't get the bargain but you get a really good player -- and that's OK.

[Skinsinparadise]

15 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

I don't agree, take the Pryor signing. In a dire situation with both our starting Wr's having left, we signed him in a home run move. Everyone knows he was younger then both the guys that left and is an up and comer in the league. Should have been a 100% reaction to the move from everyone, but what did everyone say? Grade A+ move but why only one year??? It's been said by everyone and paints a negative slant on that signing. Everyone is the media either through print, online, podcast, wherever. Not everyone as in including the fans of the team

 

The Pryor deal was very well received even with the one year component to it.  I recall when it went down, Chad Dukes and JP Finley gushing and gushing.  Even negative nellie Chris Russell touted it.  I can't recall one critique of the deal.   If the point is you aren't going to get EVERY media type to get behind everything -- sure.  There are a gazillion reporters/blogs these days you aren't going to win them all over.

 

But we are talking specific to a Kirk deal.  And yeah I'll guess with much confidence that a Kirk deal will be very well received.  By everyone on the planet?  Nope.  But its impossible to win over everyone.  On the Kirk negotiations again most are suggesting it won't get done because either Kirk doesn't want to be here or the Redskins won't pay up what's needed.  And they are getting mostly slammed on that front.  If the Redskins got Kirk in the fold I'd bet money it will be well received by at least 80% of the people covering the team.  Most of the local radio guys like Sheehan, Cooley, Galdi, Paulsen, Czaben, Weinstein, Rouhier are practically begging the team to get a deal done.   Most of the beat reporters seem to push it too.  If they sign Kirk I'd bet more than half of the radio shows in the city will be practically lighting fireworks while talking about how great of a resign it was. 

 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'm beginning to think that putting $50 million in Kirk's pocket was not the best starting ploy in a negotiation.

[Dirt]

1 hour ago, Morneblade said:

 

I agree with everything you said here. I go back a long way, being a redskins fan. Back to the 70's, when the team was "ok". Not great, but you felt pride in that you had a organization that wasn't a cluster****. I loved the blue collar approach. I loved the "over the hill gang". Had some really good years, and some that were just ok. But the team never looked like this. It always looked like it was making good moves. And treating people well. You don't get that sense anymore.

I still don't get this doomsday feeling everyone has.  The only odd thing is Scot being let go.  We already knew guys were hitting FA or needing contracts.  Back to back winning seasons, young players, coach extended, changes in crappy defense... I mean what do people want us to do differently, and why is this considered dark times or something??

[Skinsinparadise]

Giants tagged Pierre-Paul, got a deal done and well before July 15th.  They didn't get a bargain but kept a critical piece in the fold.  Same idea should be with Kirk IMO.

 

1.  
2. Mike Garafolo‏Verified account @MikeGarafolo  4m4 minutes ago

   More

   Mike Garafolo Retweeted Ian Rapoport

   North of $15m per year. The Giants really came up to make this happen and knew what it would take after $17m tag.

   Mike Garafolo added,

   Ian RapoportVerified account @RapSheet

   #Giants pass-rusher Jason Pierre-Paul signed a 4-year contract worth $62M base – up $66M – with $40M guaranteed, source said. Big-time

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 hour ago, thesubmittedone said:

But I think people are missing the forest for the trees when discussing this recent stuff from Breer regarding Scot and, in particular, him wanting to offer Kirk an extension before 2015.

 

If it's true... it's not about whether Kirk would've accepted or not. It's not about whether that would've even been feasible at the time.

 

It's about the fact that Dan and Allen had just hired this guy about 8 months before to do THIS SPECIFIC JOB. That's his title. He's the football guy brought in, by them, to say and do things like this. They could've disagreed, and that would've been perfectly reasonable... heck, even I would've been shocked at the time and I've always believed in Kirk, but they should've let him do the friggin job he was hired to do and AT LEAST MAKE AN OFFER. They were already standing in the way? Really? Al-friggin-ready? 

 

How that's not a massive problem to some, I don't know.

 

Annnnd here's where I step in lol...

 

- "It's not about whether Kirk would've accepted (an extension) or not." Actually, yes it is. Because all "this" is about a multitude of things, one of which is the fallacy that "We would have had Cousins locked in right now for $12 mil if we had listened to Scot!!". That statement (and dozens of versions of it) has been bleated out on this thread and in general when discussing Cousins' current LTD situation. So whether or not Cousins signing back then was even possible on a minuscule level is definitely in play and should not be dismissed as irrelevant.

 

- "Dan and Allen had just hired this guy about 8 months before to do THIS SPECIFIC JOB. That's his title." True, but "this guy" was apparently not a believer in Cousins through training camp according to both Keim and Russell. So if "this guy" goes from "I don't believe in him" to "let's extend him" in a matter of a week or so, it should bring at least 2 questions to mind in both Bruce and Dan: 1) Why extend someone you were just doubting, and 2) why should we just rubber stamp this turnaround in your thinking without having you convince us first? Afterall, Cousins was already on the team, it wasn't like he was a free agent that they were saying "no" to. So he was already part of the roster Scot M was in charge of creating. Saying "He's on the roster, let's wait" is NOT the same as "Sorry, you can't have this player on the roster at all".

 

Plus, I'm pretty sure Allen and Schaeffer were not beholden to get the exact roster Scot wanted, no matter what. What if Scot wanted to sign a bunch of high-priced free agents that would have put the team over the cap? Who makes the decisions then? And before you or anyone else says it, I know that would be severely unlikely. But that's not my point. My point is that there was a system of checks and balances at play...it was never write-a-blank-check-for-whatever-Scot-wants. And I'm sure Scot understood this to a good degree. It's why he had to "stand on the table" about drafting Crowder...if Scot is the roster dictator, he wouldn't have given two ****s about anyone else's views. "We're drafting Crowder, period". But it doesn't do any good to draft players that the coach rarely lets on the field...and Gruden was in charge of that. It doesn't help to want veteran players the team can't afford...and Allen was in charge of that.

 

My view--which I still hold--is if anyone, anywhere, reads anything concerning what has transpired over the last 2 years and convinces themselves that they know all they need to know to reach any conclusions in all of this about Scot, Allen or Snyder, they're being naive. I guarantee you something else will surface in a few weeks, then in a few months, then sometime next year...and if we aren't anchored in on our positions we won't have too much of a need to reach any conclusions right now about any of the men. And we'll be OK with that. Sure, we can use our intellect to figure if one things seems more likely than some other thing, but never lose sight of the fact that we still don't know enough.

 

There's some saying that goes something like "Intelligence is the ability to see things from a multitude of perspectives". There are always perspectives that makes things appear different than they first appear. We lose nothing by trying to find them.

[goskins10]

5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Giants tagged Pierre-Paul, got a deal done and well before July 15th.  They didn't get a bargain but kept a critical piece in the fold.  Same idea should be with Kirk IMO.

 

1.  
2. Mike Garafolo‏Verified account @MikeGarafolo  4m4 minutes ago

   More

   Mike Garafolo Retweeted Ian Rapoport

   North of $15m per year. The Giants really came up to make this happen and knew what it would take after $17m tag.

   Mike Garafolo added,

   Ian RapoportVerified account @RapSheet

   #Giants pass-rusher Jason Pierre-Paul signed a 4-year contract worth $62M base – up $66M – with $40M guaranteed, source said. Big-time

 

I knew this would come up lol They gave him the Non-exclusive tag. They let him see the market and then they came to agreement. I know it feels like splitting hairs. But it's really not.

 

[Skinsinparadise]

5 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

I knew this would come up lol They gave him the Non-exclusive tag. They let him see the market and then they came to agreement. I know it feels like splitting hairs. But it's really not.

 

 

The point is he got a healthy amount of money, Pierre Paul at 15 million a year is no bargain signing IMO (and others are saying the same on twitter) and if he didn't get feelers on the market -- it makes the point even stronger that they just wanted to lock him in.  Jenkins last year wasn't a bargain signing, neither was Vernon or Harrison.  I doubt the Giants care, they now have a great defense. 

[ThomasRoane]

3 hours ago, elkabong82 said:

At this point I don't expect a LTD before the draft. 

 

Let's be honest, as much as Skins fans love to complain, if they do sign Kirk to a LTD before the draft there will be a segment of fans and definitely local media, all going off about how the team was dumb for doing it before the draft because it cut off potential big trade offers for lots of picks. 

 

 

 

More than likely a LTD for Kirk won't happen until the Stafford extension.  Which will probably get done until the summer according to the latest.  That will allow both the Redskins and Kirk's Agent to ascertain his fair market value.  Matt Ryan and Derek Carr's extensions could affect the situation as well.  Everyone needs to just sit tight until those deals are done. 

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/writer-confident-lions-can-get-extension-with-matthew-stafford/

 

Snippit from Kirk's interview with Schefter. 

 

Quote

And this entire process for me, from a contractual standpoint, has been framed by the franchise tag rules. It hasn’t really been framed by my market value.

 

Being tagged, the only way Kirk can approximate his fair market value this year is to compare the deals other QB's (some his peers) receive.

 

http://www.csnmidatlantic.com/washington-redskins/one-recurring-theme-kirk-cousins-camp-market-value

[goskins10]

2 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

You know, I neither have the emotional capacity nor the energy to really argue about the following, so you likely won't hear more from me on this other than this post. Part of that is I sincerely hope those on the opposite side of this are right, and that my feelings towards those at the top of the organization are unfounded. I don't say that to be patronizing nor condescending, it's truly sincere.

 

But I think people are missing the forest for the trees when discussing this recent stuff from Breer regarding Scot and, in particular, him wanting to offer Kirk an extension before 2015.

 

If it's true... it's not about whether Kirk would've accepted or not. It's not about whether that would've even been feasible at the time.

 

It's about the fact that Dan and Allen had just hired this guy about 8 months before to do THIS SPECIFIC JOB. That's his title. He's the football guy brought in, by them, to say and do things like this. They could've disagreed, and that would've been perfectly reasonable... heck, even I would've been shocked at the time and I've always believed in Kirk, but they should've let him do the friggin job he was hired to do and AT LEAST MAKE AN OFFER. They were already standing in the way? Really? Al-friggin-ready? 

 

How that's not a massive problem to some, I don't know.

 

 

Anyways... just get this friggin right. Sign him to a LTD, hire a legit GM (after a legit search), and move on. For the love of God, just do the right thing, it's not that hard. 

 

I get what you are saying and agree almost entirely. We were sold a bill of goods that Scot was in charge of personnel. Less than a year later it appears they took that away from him if he in fact ever had it. Of course how it got that way is what we do not know. It's true the track record would suggest they - meaning Dan and/or Bruce - never relinquished control as promised. But I also see this as an advantage in signing Kirk. For Bruce, be careful what you wish for. You may just get it.

 

He virtually has to get a LTD done. If he does not get one done, it is very likely the team will falter. Anything short of the POs should be considered a failure - with or without Kirk to be honest. So if he let's Kirk go and the team falters - he is gone. Dan is loyal (typically to the wrong people), but he hates losing. Does that make us better or worse? Depends on who he hires I suppose. 

 

I just think Bruce knows his head would be on the line if he does not get Kirk signed. I guess he could let this go another year. The problem is that's really a no win situation.

If the teams falters - all will blame him for not showing confidence in Kirk, this negatively affecting his play.

If the team is successful (at least one PO game - should beat least 1 win), then he is really stuck trying to get Kirk signed to a LTD. Just like this year is starting at $24M yr, next year will start at $28.5M (about).

 

To your larger point, they have to hire another legit GM, or ultimately even signing Kirk will not be enough. Bruce is really good at managing the CAP. I get having to play hardball. But you got let go of that wallet sometimes. But knowing the process I am willing to be patient. After all, I really do not have much choice. It's not like I could sign him. Trust me, if I could buy the team, I would do it tomorrow. Hire one of the really good young GM prospects and get the hell out of the way.

 

But I digress. It will be at the very least disappointing if they do not hire another GM right after or even before the draft.

 

 

I do long for a day when I can go to NFL.com, come in here, read the paper and be proud of this team. I defend them because I think the beatings are over the top sometimes - not all the time - but sometimes. But that does not mean I am proud of the franchise. And that sucks.

 

I first got started getting interested in the Redskins because the Senators sucked. Then the team hired Vince Lombardi and right after that the Senators moved to TX - ****ing TX! Home of the cowpukes! Up until the Dan Snyder years I was proud to be a Redskin. It stopped being proud starting with signing Jeff George. I wasn't happy before. But that was the last straw in terms of being proud.

 

But I guess I should have been a Cubs fan. Each year, it's "Wait till next year!". Somehow I find a way to get my hopes up again. Yes, I do know the definition fro insanity. I never said it was healthy approach.

 

 

[Boss_Hogg]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Giants tagged Pierre-Paul, got a deal done and well before July 15th.  They didn't get a bargain but kept a critical piece in the fold.  Same idea should be with Kirk IMO.

 

1.  

 

Easier and cheaper to sign a DE with 7 fingers than a franchise QB. 

 

Money is higher, negotiations are longer. Andrew Luck didn't re-sign his until June of 2016. 

[RWJ]

14 minutes ago, Boss_Hogg said:

 

Easier and cheaper to sign a DE with 7 fingers than a franchise QB. 

 

Money is higher, negotiations are longer. Andrew Luck didn't re-sign his until June of 2016. 

But Luck wasn't tagged a 2nd time either.

[Est.1974]

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

I knew this would come up lol They gave him the Non-exclusive tag. They let him see the market and then they came to agreement. I know it feels like splitting hairs. But it's really not.

 

 

Yes it is splitting hairs.

 

Our FO needs to be proactive. We need to move forward as an organisation. Not for the fans, not for the media, but for the organisation and then everything else that follows. Kirk has been on the tag for 13 months and we are still no further forward. The history of the tag, who gets signed, who doesn't, it's all about negotiation etc etc in off the shelf text book BS.

 

Sometime in sport, business, life, you have to throw the text book away and act. Be decisive and forward thinking. In the situation of Kirk, I don't want the FO to do what I want, I want them to do something that demonstrates they are willing to drive this organisation forward. Gruden now has a 4 year deal. I'm damn sure he wants Kirk at QB. Nevermind making a commitment to Kirk, make one to Gruden. Give him his QB. The price is the price. That can't be dictated now, it's essentially fixed due to the tag numbers. I think he'll be overpaid due to the nature of his situation but tough ****, that's life. You decide, act, move on. We are not. Same applies if we are not going to pay him. Decide, trade , move on. We've had 13 months sitting on this egg.

 

This organisation needs to move forward quickly. The people who run the organisation need to show some balls and commitment to the people it wants to take us forward. If he is the QB of the future for us, there is no reason at all for Kirk Cousins to be on a one year rental tag deal right now.

 

To hide behind the pitfalls of the CBA and the tag is somewhat weak IMO. It's an excuse for lack of decisiveness.

[carex]

Cousins is looking at the tag wrong.  It's the NFL that says he's worth 24 mil, the Redskins are just saying we don't want him hitting free agency.

[goskins10]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The point is he got a healthy amount of money, Pierre Paul at 15 million a year is no bargain signing IMO (and others are saying the same on twitter) and if he didn't get feelers on the market -- it makes the point even stronger that they just wanted to lock him in.  Jenkins last year wasn't a bargain signing, neither was Vernon or Harrison.  I doubt the Giants care, they now have a great defense. 

 

 

I get your point. If they wanted him, why not just sign him. I agree to a point. But I still think it's a bit different. In the end fro me it really just comes down to do they sign him or not. If they do, I really don't care when. If they don't that's a different conversation.

[Stefanskins]

6 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

I thought - incorrectly I see - posting facts, data, and real life examples would help overall understand. But clearly not. So here we go:

 

There are a couple reasons negotiations go right to the deadline:

1. Kirk's team could indeed blink as regardless of what people say the security of a long term agreement will always be more attractive than a year to year contract. So by waiting it out the team could save CAP $s. Which interestingly enough many people seem to very concerned with - until it's time for the tough negotiations. Then they suddenly lose the stomach for it.  

 

 

2

I'd equate it to you are almost always better off, as a defendant, to take your case to the day of the trial (unless the prosecution makes you an unbelievable deal)....because the prosecutor almost always will give you a better deal...least that has been my experience...

[Est.1974]

8 minutes ago, carex said:

Cousins is looking at the tag wrong.  It's the NFL that says he's worth 24 mil, the Redskins are just saying we don't want him hitting free agency.

 

I think Kirk knows that, he's just staying what needs to be said in a politically correct manner.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

 

My view--which I still hold--is if anyone, anywhere, reads anything concerning what has transpired over the last 2 years and convinces themselves that they know all they need to know to reach any conclusions in all of this about Scot, Allen or Snyder, they're being naive. I guarantee you something else will surface in a few weeks, then in a few months, then sometime next year...and if we aren't anchored in on our positions we won't have too much of a need to reach any conclusions right now about any of the men. And we'll be OK with that. Sure, we can use our intellect to figure if one things seems more likely than some other thing, but never lose sight of the fact that we still don't know enough.

 

There's some saying that goes something like "Intelligence is the ability to see things from a multitude of perspectives". There are always perspectives that makes things appear different than they first appear. We lose nothing by trying to find them.

 

The full facts might never come out.  I think its likewise naive not to have serious doubts directed towards the one party who has consistently been accused of the same thing in so many variations and so many sources over so many years.  I got little doubt we will find out some wild stuff about Scot, it goes with the turf with drinking issues.  I'd also be wildly surprised if we learn Bruce and Dan were boy scouts through the whole ordeal.  

 

 The sarcasm in this paragraph isn't directed at you, just using it to make a point. Till this day we don't know if Shanny is right and the McNabb deal was foisted on him by Dan/Bruce.   Maybe Shanny is making it up?  Ditto not wanting to give up that much for RG3.  The idea that Danny was heavily involved with the FO during the Zorn years from what we heard -- maybe that was just made up too?  Is there another side to the story of Danny leaving a vanilla ice cream container at Mike Nolan's doorstep?  Maybe the person who said that Dan got rid of Marty in part because he told them he just wasn't have any fun without the control -- made it up?  Joe Gibbs got in on the act joking about Danny called him out of the blue one night about trading for Lance Briggs.  Shanny shared a story recently similar to that with Danny urging him to sign Randy Moss back in the day.   We've seen the stats of all the turnover and firings at Redskins Park over the years and maybe there is something to the idea that its not a happy place to work in.  We can't prove or disprove any of it. But so what?  IMO its too much to be all lies, coincidences and false smoke.  I bet some of it is hyperbole, some of it is wrong.  But I also likewise bet  (as some beat reporters have said) there are some wild stories that haven't made the light of day. 

 

Heck I thought they turned a page when Shanny was in control.  And I defended on this board the Danny/Bruce side of the story, then.   Shanny was just shifting blame on McNabb playing poorly, etc.  But in retrospect I think I was wrong.  It can't always IMO be that everyone else is the problem.  If so Danny must be the unluckiest man in America -- he and his cronies are just great guys who are hiring people who oddly go astray and then compound it all by lying about it and make Danny take the blame.  And maybe its not Danny, maybe its his crony du jour whether its Bruce or Vinny.  But regardless, the owner helps set the culture of the franchise and in this case I buy that Danny's intentions are good but something always seem to be awry about the culture - depending on the source it's too much fear (you can't make mistakes), ego, and a strong desire to do things his way. 

 

As for the Scot situation, heck it could be mostly on him -- maybe he was the bad guy.  It's just hard for me to imagine based on past history with this franchise that Bruce/Danny weren't at least partly at fault.  I'd give them more benefit of the doubt in this case -- if we weren't witnessing the ugliness directed at Scot as they kicked him out the door.   It doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy vibe to the Bruce/Danny side of the story.  A lot of the endings here have ended ugly.