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

[goskins10]

6 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

No. Not in terms of guaranteed money, at least, which is what matters most.  

 

edit

 

And don't think for one second I'm putting those players down. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. I only want the players we do pay to put in the work, accept their coaching, and do everything they can to succeed while they're on the team. That's enough for me to root for them. The fluff talk or lack of fluff talk outside of this is just that. Fluff.

 

Meh. 

 

This is the thing I think people just can't seem to get past. Everyone is trying to find some deeper meaning to questions, answers and other incendiary statements.

 

The rest is not directly at you TSO. Just continuing with my own thoughts.

 

It's the business part of the year. None of Kirk's statements - or none statements say anything about him or the team. His agent and him are taking a different approach to the tag but it is not evil, it's not dirty pool. It is nothing but a smart business approach. The team made business decisions also. They did not see this new approach and anyone thinking they should have is not being realistic. No agent and player had ever taken this approach. All players had previously hated the tag for it's lack of long term security.

 

Both are doing what they need to do from a business standpoint. Is it really that hard to accept that neither side has done anything wrong?

 

Until July comes and goes, to me this is just business and will run it's course. If however, the team does not get him signed in July, that will be a mistake - one that is inexcusable. Until then, I am willing to let the process play out and not take anything said by either side too serious.

[TSO]

@goskins10 I agree with the sentiment overall, but one thing I slightly disagree with is the part where you said: 

 

42 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

They did not see this new approach and anyone thinking they should have is not being realistic.

 

 

While I agree it would've, perhaps, been difficult for them to see this supposed "new approach" coming, I disagree that it would've been unrealistic for them to and I also disagree with labeling it "a new approach" in the first place. 

 

Like I said, when they applied the tag on a QB that, in and of itself, was a very rare occurrence. When they let him actually play on it, well, that was unprecedented. Applying it a second time continued to be.  

 

If we are to believe only the sound reports thus far, offering him a deal last offseason that would've given him only $24 million in guaranteed money over multiple years would've been asinine for him to accept when he was going to get $20 million for one year either way along with knowing the market for QBs in general. 

 

So, if anything, the "new approach" was and has been really coming from the team's side. 

 

At some point they should've had the foresight to recognize his situation. Quite a few of us did here and we're just idiot fans on a message board. 

 

It wasn't hard to envision that Kirk would follow up his performance with another solid one, at the very least, and even potentially a great one, which would then strengthen his position and end up costing the team more. That was always the likeliest scenario. I think you yourself agreed with that assessment last offseason.

 

In fact, most of us were simply resigned to accepting that we were going to pay him at least 2-3 million more per year to ascertain some kind of "certainty" about him so long as he didn't totally bomb. Not if he improved, not if he won playoff games. Just that he didn't bomb, and that would've been enough. And it was always extremely unlikely he was going to bomb. So, really, the bigger risk for the team was to NOT just get it done last offseason versus Kirk ending up being a fluke. 

 

Still fine so long as they figure this out and get a deal done in the end. There is no "winning the deal" for the organization anymore like there may have been before, but they can at least minimize the damage. 

 

But, my God, if they don't... this will go down as one of the greatest franchise gaffes in the history of the NFL and it absolutely started with their decision last offseason. 

 

People (not you, of course, goskins) can be cute and nitpick his game all they want. They can intensely focus on the one or two stats that make him look bad while omitting or downplaying the increasingly growing multitude of them that are among the best in the league (not top 15 or top 10; the best). They can claim it's his surrounding cast, ignoring that most great QB play necessitates a great supporting cast, while also omitting any improvement he showed in 2016 when missing said cast members (while going up against the hardest defensive schedule in the league this past season). They can claim the "eye test" to justify it when all else fails. They can argue about where he falls in terms of ranking him among the top 15 like it matters where exactly in some arbitrary listing he fits.

 

It's all silly, in the end. He's a bonafide starter in this league, a very good one who can potentially improve to even be great, and can do things at the position we haven't seen here in decades. 

 

Those guys get paid elite contracts and they simply NEVER end up on the market in their prime. Ever. 

 

I know you agree with this, but there will be zero excuses for the organization if it comes to that. They can put stuff out there that'll smear him on his way out like they do with many, but only the most naive will fall for it. 

[Rattlesnake88]

12 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

The fact that he has already been working with the WR's, helping Pryor learn the offense and things like that could be looked at as trying to help the team, right?

 

An argument could be made for Kirk trying to help his chemistry with the new wr's so he could have better stats/better contract. 

 

Listen, this isn't the Supreme Court. My judgments and gut feelings on the guy wouldn't be considered proof and would all be circumstantial evidence. I get it! But he also has done nothing to prove being loyal either. 

 

I think Kirk saying "I want to win a Super Bowl for this fan base, I want to play in D.C." But then enter his "I want to be fair to future contracts" quote. Would have been easier to swallow. That's all. He's playing his hand too close to his chest and for me personally, it gets annoying. 

 

Now that being said. I hope he is our qb. I really like him. I'm not a "Kirk hater" or whatever the term is in mid April.

[goskins10]

5 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

@goskins10 I agree with the sentiment overall, but one thing I slightly disagree with is the part where you said: 

 

 

 

While I agree it would've, perhaps, been difficult for them to see this supposed "new approach" coming, I disagree that it would've been unrealistic for them to and I also disagree with labeling it "a new approach" in the first place. 

 

edit

 

Those guys get paid elite contracts and they simply NEVER end up on the market in their prime. Ever. 

 

I know you agree with this, but there will be zero excuses for the organization if it comes to that. They can put stuff out there that'll smear him on his way out like they do with many, but only the most naive will fall for it. 

 

 

When I say new approach - no one had ever been OK with playing on the tag. But there is some precedence here for a player playing on his 2nd and actually even defined as the 3rd tag.

 

Orlando Pace (not a QB I know) was tagged 3 yrs in a row - 2002 to 2005.

 

Brew Brees - He was tagged by San Diego, then tagged by NOs in 2012. He sued the NFL that his tag by NO should be considered his 3rd and therefore the tag number should be 144% of the previous years salary. He was that law suit on July 3, 2012 and they signed him before the deadline. So technically Drew Brees was tagged by NO twice, at least that's what the lawsuit says.

 

Terrell Suggs was given the tag in 2008 - he sued the NFL to be considered a LB and won. He played on the tag in 2008 after agreeing to split the difference with the team. He was tagged again in 2009 and then was signed to a long term deal. So he was tagged 2 yrs in a row.

 

We will have to agree to disagree that it was obvious that he would repeat his performance. There was a good reason to be cautious - last year. I do agree it will cost the team more. With the rising CAP the extra money is not that big a deal. But it will be more than last year for sure.

 

Again, the point I was making is this is the first time a player has said they are totally fine playing on the tag. It is a completely new approach. No player before has ever said they were OK playing on the tag. Mike Vick held out. Von Miller threatened to hold out. Terrell Suggs played on the tag but not because he wanted to. It was the only way to get paid and he knew it would give him leverage the next year. And it did. He got a contract as the highest paid LB in the NFL. Other players have threatened to hold out and either got a contract, released, or traded. I really think the team though he was not serious about playing on the tag - understandably so. Good on Kirk for making a wise move.

Don't mistake any of this in me not preferring they just pay him now and be done with it. There is a lot of goodwill that could be had here. Something the team under Snyder does not seem to believe in. There is no such thing as just doing the right thing. It's all tied to making a buck.

 

But in the end if they get it done then all is OK for me in terms of Kirk Cousins. There are still other issues but I tend to compartmentalize them individually. If they do not get it done this year and let him play on the tag, it will be inexcusable no matter what ends up happening after. That's just being stubborn and stupid not cautious. If that happens, as far as I am concerned BA and DS can go **** themselves.

 

[Tsailand]

36 minutes ago, Rattlesnake88 said:

An argument could be made for Kirk trying to help his chemistry with the new wr's so he could have better stats/better contract. 

 

No ****.  You could say that any time any player does anything to improve his game.

[Rattlesnake88]

2 minutes ago, Tsailand said:

 

No ****.  You could say that any time any player does anything to improve his game.

Ok man. He still isn't signed with us. I have faith it gets done. However if he is still jockeying for max contract from highest bidder next year at this time I'll be betting you along with others will be throwing the biggest fits. 

 

Just trying to keep it real. Sitting here trying to paint a picture that what Kirk is doing is standard protocol could and has only left some with hurt feelings. He will play here when the numbers are right, that's all. If the magic number isn't met. Say bye to #8.

 

im guessing your next response could be "duh". But in reality almost any post in this whole thread could be replied with such.

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

4 minutes ago, Rattlesnake88 said:

Ok man. He still isn't signed with us. I have faith it gets done. However if he is still jockeying for max contract from highest bidder next year at this time I'll be betting you along with others will be throwing the biggest fits. 

 

 

You're right, we will be throwing fits about the front office not making the deal happen before it gets to that point.

 

Most all of us, from fast food workers to professional atheletes, jockey to get paid the most we can for our services.  The difference is you can find folks to run a cash register anywhere, NFL qbs on the other hand are damn near unicorns.  

[Rattlesnake88]

1 minute ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

You're right, we will be throwing fits about the front office not making the deal happen before it gets to that point.

 

Most all of us, from fast food workers to professional atheletes, jockey to get paid the most we can for our services.  The difference is you can find folks to run a cash register anywhere, NFL qbs on the other hand are damn near unicorns.  

I understand this. I really do, I think my original point is just that I would have liked to see more leadership and accountability from someone demanding soo much. Unfortunately for leverage sake, it doesn't matter how he acted. He could have went out and man handled a volunteer ref in a charity game and we would still have to pay him whatever he wants....oh wait.

[Peregrine]

1 hour ago, Rattlesnake88 said:

I understand this. I really do, I think my original point is just that I would have liked to see more leadership and accountability from someone demanding soo much. Unfortunately for leverage sake, it doesn't matter how he acted. He could have went out and man handled a volunteer ref in a charity game and we would still have to pay him whatever he wants....oh wait.

Low blow

[Rattlesnake88]

24 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

Low blow

No way. Lost in translation. Totally giggled after writing that. Again, I like Kirk! I want him signed! People can have different opinions! Put away the pitchforks.

[wit33]

I'm convinced some in here are holding back and have insider information, but somehow this intel gives Kirk zero responsibility in an ongoing business negotiation. 

 

Amazing!

 

I want Kirk resigned, but not for whatever he wants or because of organizational mishaps 17 years ago. He gives the Skins a chance to compete, bottom line. 

 

 

 

[Peregrine]

1 hour ago, Rattlesnake88 said:

No way. Lost in translation. Totally giggled after writing that. Again, I like Kirk! I want him signed! People can have different opinions! Put away the pitchforks.

No can do, the pitchforks have been launched, once they reach terminal velocity theres no bringing them back, even to those of us with the codes.

[Burgold]

I know it's not going to happen, but I would really love to get a LTD hammered out and signed before the draft. Get it done.

[Skinsinparadise]

6 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

Still fine so long as they figure this out and get a deal done in the end. There is no "winning the deal" for the organization anymore like there may have been before, but they can at least minimize the damage. 

 

But, my God, if they don't... this will go down as one of the greatest franchise gaffes in the history of the NFL and it absolutely started with their decision last offseason. 

 

People (not you, of course, goskins) can be cute and nitpick his game all they want. They can intensely focus on the one or two stats that make him look bad while omitting or downplaying the increasingly growing multitude of them that are among the best in the league (not top 15 or top 10; the best). They can claim it's his surrounding cast, ignoring that most great QB play necessitates a great supporting cast, while also omitting any improvement he showed in 2016 when missing said cast members (while going up against the hardest defensive schedule in the league this past season). They can claim the "eye test" to justify it when all else fails. They can argue about where he falls in terms of ranking him among the top 15 like it matters where exactly in some arbitrary listing he fits.

 

It's all silly, in the end. He's a bonafide starter in this league, a very good one who can potentially improve to even be great, and can do things at the position we haven't seen here in decades. 

 

Those guys get paid elite contracts and they simply NEVER end up on the market in their prime. Ever. 

 

 

That's the bottom line IMO these guys don't hit the market.   Even if I ran with his critics here who concede he's good but question whether he's great -- still good QBs are rare and are a hard find.  They get paid top dollar.  It's just how the market is.

 

Kirk's agent is just playing the hand the Redskins dealt them.   According to Grant Paulsen, they offered the Redskins a 3 year deal for 20 million a year last off season and were shot down.  The tag sets the value.  Last year it was 20 million.  This year its 24 million.

 

To me its simple, Bruce has shown he's willing to rent the room at market price but doesn't want to buy the house at it or put much of a down payment down (guaranteed money).  Kirk's response seems to be fine, if you just want to date and not get married then either let me go in 2018 to someone who does want to get married or they'd have to grossly overpay to keep him off the market.

 

All of that makes sense from Kirk's side of it.  The team hasn't yet according to reports offered much in guaranteed money.  And they aren't so far being willing to buy him for what they are willing to rent him for.  So from Kirk's perspective I'd feel the same way -- look guys if you don't think I am worth a long term commitment in guaranteed money or willing to pay me over the long haul for what you are willing to rent me for -- then let me hit the market because I am confident I have suitors who will do it.

 

Bruce has shown he's a good bargain shopper but there is another side to FA and that is paying top dollar for talent.  Bruce likely isn't in his wheel house here since this likely comes down to paying a player the full market price versus getting a discount.  Bruce's instincts are already in question if he was as some say the guy who didn't want to sign Kirk a year ago.  If so Bruce cost the team some serious money.  If he thinks he can make up for that mistake by simply getting Kirk to take a contract that would have made sense in 2016 as opposed to 2017 -- I'd guess Bruce is in for a rude awakening.

 

My fear on this is Bruce's ego-rep might be in play where he has to explain to Danny (if Danny was neutral on this and took Bruce's advice) that his advice to not sign Kirk in 2016 was sage because heck he could get Kirk now still for what Kirk's agent offered them in 2016 -- so no big deal.  And we are stuck with Bruce trying to stubbornly cling to this to justify everything to his boss.  I've been stuck on this point of late because it was clear from all the fall out of the Bruce-Scot drill that Scot's side really really want to get out that Bruce was opposed to the deal in 2016.  Based on that, I'd presume there is a chance that Scot is privy to the idea that the current consternation and issues centered on making a deal with Kirk is somehow a product in some fashion or form from Bruce being opposed to a long term deal in 2016.   

 

If they misplay their hand with Kirk and he bolts and succeeds elsewhere.  It would make Bruce IMO a bigger buffoon than Vinny ever was. 
 

[TSO]

6 hours ago, goskins10 said:

When I say new approach - no one had ever been OK with playing on the tag. But there is some precedence here for a player playing on his 2nd and actually even defined as the 3rd tag.

 

Orlando Pace (not a QB I know) was tagged 3 yrs in a row - 2002 to 2005.

 

Brew Brees - He was tagged by San Diego, then tagged by NOs in 2012. He sued the NFL that his tag by NO should be considered his 3rd and therefore the tag number should be 144% of the previous years salary. He was that law suit on July 3, 2012 and they signed him before the deadline. So technically Drew Brees was tagged by NO twice, at least that's what the lawsuit says.

 

Terrell Suggs was given the tag in 2008 - he sued the NFL to be considered a LB and won. He played on the tag in 2008 after agreeing to split the difference with the team. He was tagged again in 2009 and then was signed to a long term deal. So he was tagged 2 yrs in a row.

 

I know the history of the franchise tag, brother. The fact that we only have one example at the same position in Drew Brees that isn't even an exact comparison should add to my point, not yours. 

 

To me, that's not "some precedent". Maybe it's "a precedent", but that's arguable too and I don't feel like arguing semantics. 

 

The difference with Kirk has been stated. There's no doubt about it, his situation is absolutely unique and the team could've, and even should've, recognized this. The other players play at positions, along with a style of play, way more at risk for injury. That alone is a massive difference. 

 

But, we both agree, it's all good if they make up for the original misreading of the situation. I think it's ok to characterize it as a misreading, that's all. While I understand the rationale of letting him play on the tag, I don't think they should be alleviated from the consequences of that decision of which there was more bad than good to come out of.  

 

6 hours ago, goskins10 said:

We will have to agree to disagree that it was obvious that he would repeat his performance. There was a good reason to be cautious - last year. I do agree it will cost the team more. With the rising CAP the extra money is not that big a deal. But it will be more than last year for sure.

 

I think here's where you're misunderstanding me (might be my fault, of course). I never said it was about him "repeating his performance". What I said, and I know for a fact you agreed with this last offseason, was that (by far) the likeliest outcome would be that Kirk followed it up with another solid performance or even a great one. But the key regarding his contract was that so long as he didn't bomb his price was only going to go up. 

 

That's really all he had to. Not bomb. And if he improved upon it... well that was going to be real costly. 

 

Hence, why many of us were clamoring for a LTD last offseason. I literally had posts before the deadline last offseason stating that I'm convinced the team isn't foolish enough to let him play on the tag because there was no doubt in my mind he'd play well enough for the price to go up.

 

I even said it'd be near impossible for him to repeat exactly how he played the last couple months of 2015 since he was playing like the best QB in the league (not top 5 or top ten, I believe he had the highest QB rating in the league) and that he'd be a Hall of Famer if he did. So I thought he'd have a slight regression to the mean with a harder defensive schedule, but that he'd largely play well which would lead to it costing a lot more so I figured they knew to get him signed before that happens. 

 

It's ok to simultaneously acknowledge that while also acknowledging the team's rationale for not doing it. But hindsight shows it wasn't the best decision in the end, and consistently better foresight is the difference between good FOs and bad ones. So asking for that is not some "unrealistic" desire, you know? 

 

6 hours ago, goskins10 said:

Again, the point I was making is this is the first time a player has said they are totally fine playing on the tag. It is a completely new approach. No player before has ever said they were OK playing on the tag. Mike Vick held out. Von Miller threatened to hold out. Terrell Suggs played on the tag but not because he wanted to. It was the only way to get paid and he knew it would give him leverage the next year. And it did. He got a contract as the highest paid LB in the NFL. Other players have threatened to hold out and either got a contract, released, or traded. I really think the team though he was not serious about playing on the tag - understandably so. Good on Kirk for making a wise move.

 

Again, I get where you're coming from but I just think the way you're looking at this somewhat downplays how uncomplicated it was to recognize the differences with Kirk's situation versus others. Just a little bit better foresight would have. Doesn't mean they're idiots or there wasn't any rationale, I know... just means that, in the end, the minimal risk of him bombing was worth taking over the risk of him NOT bombing and it costing more. 

 

And we agree, in the end: 

 

6 hours ago, goskins10 said:

Don't mistake any of this in me not preferring they just pay him now and be done with it. There is a lot of goodwill that could be had here. Something the team under Snyder does not seem to believe in. There is no such thing as just doing the right thing. It's all tied to making a buck.

 

But in the end if they get it done then all is OK for me in terms of Kirk Cousins. There are still other issues but I tend to compartmentalize them individually. If they do not get it done this year and let him play on the tag, it will be inexcusable no matter what ends up happening after. That's just being stubborn and stupid not cautious. If that happens, as far as I am concerned BA and DS can go **** themselves.

 

Yup, all of this.  

[Skinsinparadise]

To follow up on my previous post, I'd add its not Kirk's problem that the Redskins weren't interested in Kirk at 2016 prices and now might have a beef with the rising 2017 market.  It's like shopping for a house, you could have bought it a year ago for $300,000 but a year later it appreciated to $330,000.  Then you go back to the same seller and say you know what I'll buy it for $300,000 now.  The seller would likely tell you then to take a hike.

 

That's essentially where we are at with Kirk.  Bruce apparently is offering Kirk finally a 2016 market deal -- one year too late.  If I were the seller, (in this case Kirk) I'd turn the deal down on principle alone before even thinking about the money.  The buyer (Bruce) misplayed their hand in 2016.   That's Bruce's problem -- that's not Kirk's problem.

 

And no that doesn't make Kirk greedy.    Either Bruce bet against Kirk in 2016 and lost or was willing to pay a premium to be more sure about him.  That's the bed that Bruce laid out.  It's all on him.  Not on Kirk.   In Kirk's shoes I'd be outright mad considering all of that context if the Redskins would expect him to take a discount.  They made Kirk take the risk in 2016 for injury or subpar performance.  He took the risk with no complaint and succeeded.  Now he believes he should be compensated accordingly -- and I agree he should.   Why should Bruce have his cake and eat it too?

 

And as for the greed accusation that some make, Kirk said something I've never heard any player express before which is if the contract is proven too burdensome or his performance doesn't match it -- he's consider a salary cut, then.   Kirk works hard and is an honest guy.  And that comment IMO shows his sensitivity to his contract at any point hindering the team.  It's very nice gesture to make publicly and like I said I can't recall another player ever saying something like that.  He isn't the type who just throws out hollow rhetoric.    

[Tsailand]

33 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Kirk said something I've never heard any player express before which is if the contract is proven too burdensome or his performance doesn't match it -- he's consider a salary cut, then.

 

His agent must have facepalmed so hard when he heard that.

[Skinsinparadise]

23 minutes ago, Tsailand said:

 

His agent must have facepalmed so hard when he heard that.

 

Yeah I was thinking the same thing.  I'd presume if he was comfortable enough to say it publicly -- maybe Kirk said it privately too in negotiations.   IMO where we are at today in negotiations is 100% a product of the hand Bruce played.  I am open to the idea that he's playing this right to the wire and will get it done, then.  But if he doesn't get it done, its a mega mistake by Bruce -- considering the context which is that he didn't get it done in 2016 when he could have likely gotten Kirk for what he's offering him now.   

 

And, at least according to Scot's side of the story he pushed Bruce to do it in 2016 and Scot's advice was ignored.  Considering all of that, Bruce then would have lost the team's franchise QB because of a combination of bad instincts in 2016 and being too cheap or stubborn to make up for that mistake in 2017.   I recall a beat reporter said that Bruce bragged on his arrival that he never would have given a Haynesworth FA type of contract to anyone.   If Bruce fails on the Kirk contract, that mistake is way worse than Vinny's blunder on Haynesworth. 

[Hooper]

If the Skins don't get a deal done before the season, it will be a nightmare. 

 

I mean, one could argue the front office -- if no LTD deal is done -- will be actively rooting for Cousins to fail or at least just play okay. 

 

Because if he continues to play at just the same level as the last two years, the 49ers and others will not be afraid to break the bank for him. And Cousins will no doubt want to move on from the team who had failed to meet his price two years in a row.

 

The only option would be to franchise KC at 34 million or get cute with the transition tag. Unlike many, I think they would actually franchise him at 34 million before letting him walk away (again, if he has another good year). And then they will try to get a LTD done, one that will cost significantly more than what it would take right now.

 

I mean, the whole thing has just been botched completely.

 

If a LTD doesn't get done, I would put nothing past Brucey. Dude is as slippery as they come. I could even see him sabotaging Kirk in some way -- be it leaks to the media, orders to the staff, whatever... Because no LTD and another solid year by KC just makes Brucey look worse than he already does. 

 

Actually the "who knows what the skins could do to mess with Kirk" idea is probably the most leverage they have over him. "Better take the longterm deal we're offering, Kirk. Just ask your former GM what we're capable of otherwise."

 

 

 

 

 

[carex]

i thought he wanted to set a precedent with future contracts

[elkabong82]

8 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

In fact, most of us were simply resigned to accepting that we were going to pay him at least 2-3 million more per year to ascertain some kind of "certainty" about him so long as he didn't totally bomb. Not if he improved, not if he won playoff games. Just that he didn't bomb, and that would've been enough. And it was always extremely unlikely he was going to bomb. So, really, the bigger risk for the team was to NOT just get it done last offseason versus Kirk ending up being a fluke. 

 

 

 

I know you agree with this, but there will be zero excuses for the organization if it comes to that.  

 

Historically there are far, far more examples of QBs doing well for a season and then flundering than there are QBs who become starters later in their career and proceed to become top 10 players. While many of us did believe Kirk would follow up with another good season, we were all concerned after the first few games this season until he settled in, and that 2015 season there were legitimate question marks due to half a season of playing well and against bad defenses. Add to that the team was burned on the RG3 investment, and just saw a division rival get burned with Foles. IMO, the team was risking a large contract and another investment not panning out vs. risking having to pay a few million more per year on the cap now, which is why I think the bigger risk would have been signing Kirk after 2015 instead of now. 

 

Completely agree on last part. I'll be livid. Entire fan base will be if they don't get it done by this July and drag out for another year. 

[Tsailand]

14 minutes ago, Hooper said:

I could even see him sabotaging Kirk in some way

 

Really man?  I just couldn't imagine anyone in the Redskins front office sabotaging a fellow Redskin, to the overall detriment of the team.

[TSO]

7 hours ago, elkabong82 said:

 

Historically there are far, far more examples of QBs doing well for a season and then flundering than there are QBs who become starters later in their career and proceed to become top 10 players. While many of us did believe Kirk would follow up with another good season, we were all concerned after the first few games this season until he settled in, and that 2015 season there were legitimate question marks due to half a season of playing well and against bad defenses. Add to that the team was burned on the RG3 investment, and just saw a division rival get burned with Foles. IMO, the team was risking a large contract and another investment not panning out vs. risking having to pay a few million more per year on the cap now, which is why I think the bigger risk would have been signing Kirk after 2015 instead of now. 

 

Completely agree on last part. I'll be livid. Entire fan base will be if they don't get it done by this July and drag out for another year. 

 

Like I told @goskins10, I understand and even accept (to some degree) their rationale. I promise I wasn't lying when I said that numerous times, lol.  

 

I'll just quote one part of what I said to him that's relevant instead of reiterating the whole thing: 

 

9 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

But, we both agree, it's all good if they make up for the original misreading of the situation. I think it's ok to characterize it as a misreading, that's all. While I understand the rationale of letting him play on the tag, I don't think they should be alleviated from the consequences of that decision of which there was more bad than good to come out of.  

 

Basically, there was some better foresight to be had on this entire situation and while, yes, you are right that there are plenty of examples of one year fluke QBs, I think it would've taken a much more severe regression that was extremely unlikely to occur to avoid seeing the price go up.

 

So, yeah, there was risk in signing him long term last offseason but there was more risk in not doing so considering how he played. I don't think that's unfair to say with what we knew then and what we know now. 

 

Not a big deal in the end if they can figure this out... but the fact that there's even a chance they don't proves this. It would be beyond unprecedented. So let's hope, like we all initially did when they made this decision last offseason, that it only ends up costing 4-5 million more per year (even though most of us thought it'd be more like 2-3 million more, but that's fine too). 

 

[Wildbunny]

1 hour ago, thesubmittedone said:

Basically, there was some better foresight to be had on this entire situation and while, yes, you are right that there are plenty of examples of one year fluke QBs, I think it would've taken a much more severe regression that was extremely unlikely to occur to avoid seeing the price go up.

 

So, yeah, there was risk in signing him long term last offseason but there was more risk in not doing so considering how he played. I don't think that's unfair to say with what we knew then and what we know now. 

 

Not a big deal in the end if they can figure this out... but the fact that there's even a chance they don't proves this. It would be beyond unprecedented. So let's hope, like we all initially did when they made this decision last offseason, that it only ends up costing 4-5 million more per year (even though most of us thought it'd be more like 2-3 million more, but that's fine too). 

They're playing chicken this year. And I can see why.

 

They used the exclusive tag this year, denying him any talk with opposite teams. And even if I believe they'll have a deal by the 15th of July, I get also the impression that Bruce might be willing to play him on the tag this year and have real negotiations next year, even if they let Kirk hit the open market at some point.

 

Right now, this year crop of college QB isn't great, so demand for veteran proven QB is high, which tends to rise their salaries. And this year's crop of vet QB available wasn't good by any means, besides Kirk, and maybe Romo (who decided to retire). Next year's crop colleges QB will supposedly be better, so teams in need of a QB will be most likely looking for young cheap prospects than cost killer veteran QBs. Some other veterans QB will have renegotiate their contracts which could also settle the market, and thus Kirk Cousins' price. If Rodgers or Ryan do renegotiate, Cousins will have a hard time asking for more. Brees will have to, if he doesn't retire. Bradford, Stafford will have to as well.

 

So our FO position might be that they see this year as a "bad" year for them to negotiate as there's nobody on the market besides Kirk, while next year, it will be better for them as there will be more prospects to chose from besides Kirk, which should lower his asking price or what he'll be offered on the market. It's one thing to have a tag of 28M and starts negotiating at this price, but if everything you get on the open market is 24, you're not gonna get anything else.

 

Playing it like this wouldn't be bad business management to me.

 

But as I said at the beginning, I would prefer a LTD by July the 15th.

[TSO]

@Wildbunny Yeah, that's an interesting way to look at it in terms of the QB market, and I mentioned something very similar to this recently as well. 

 

I believe the team, as well as Kirk's camp, are looking to see what happens with Stafford, Carr, and Ryan's contracts. By all accounts it's likely they'll be extended at some point. The question is when and if it occurs before the deadline. 

 

At the very least, it's all inter-connected in one way or another. I don't think they're operating in a vacuum at all, even knowing how unique this situation is.