Skinsinparadise Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 Five-time Pro Bowl honoree Trent Williams, the left tackle who has protected Cousins these last few years, was unequivocal Wednesday when asked about Cousins’s value. “It’s a well-known fact that without a quarterback, you’re not winning in this league,” Williams said. “Our success — and the success that we want to have — is a direct reflection of Kirk. Without him, I think it would be very hard to have a successful team. Obviously, he’s the team captain. He’s a great guy; everybody loves him. So as a teammate, I would love to see him around for the remainder of his career or the remainder of my career.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/football-insider/wp/2017/06/14/kirk-cousins-ever-patient-on-contract-status-aims-for-balance-on-field-and-life/?utm_term=.ebe0a1fd712b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theTruthTeller Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 2 hours ago, Burgold said: I'm not sure. I don't think Cousins wold have ever settled for market value. I think he always wanted a premium. I don't really begrudge him that, but I think it's true. He's been very good and pretty consistent for a year and a half, but on the other hand, I don't think anyone confuses him with Rogers or Brady. Yet he does seem to think that market value for him is the top of the elite scale. Rather, I think his agent believes he should create a new top. Ultimately, we won't know what he really wants until he signs. We only know what he has rejected (if the rumors are to be believed). This is an argument that continues to baffle me. The "market" consists of QBs that are available or might be available for the right price (these are the "sellers") and teams that need a quarterback. Rogers and Brady aren't in the market and don't get considered in any calculation of "market value". At the time that KC was franchised for the second time, this was the market: Sellers: (due to be FAs) Cousins, Glennon, Hoyer, Barkley, Keenum, Hill, Fitzpatrick, McGloin, Sanchez, G. Smith, Mallet; (available for a price) Garoppolo; (available in draft) Trubisky, Watson, Mahomes, Kizer. Buyers: Jets, Browns, Texans, Jags, Broncos, Vikings, Bears, 49ers, Rams You don't need to go to advanced metrics to see that the available pool of QBs consisted of one quarterback with success in the NFL on the "sell" side. The draft had a single QB that could start in 2017 - Watson. Everyone else is a project, The buy side consists of three teams with aspirations for a deep playoff run with a decent QB (Texans, Broncos, and Vikings), four teams whose last decent QB is a decade or more ago, and two teams with head coaches that previously coached Kirk. That's the market for Kirk. Not Brady, Ryan, Luck, Rogers, Brees, Wilson, Roethlisberger, Carr, Newton, Stafford. Their contracts don't matter. It's like promising your kid a blueberry pie for his birthday in September, and then wondering why the blueberries cost twice as much as they did in July, even though they don't look nearly as tasty. Other teams are desperate for a quarterback that their fans will pay $100-1000 per seat, per week to see. And there are teams that have plenty of cap space to "overspend" on a quarterback - in particular the 49ers and Browns, and they'll likely be in the market next year as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 That's not really true. Let's say that the best QB available on the market is Trent Dilfer (yeah, dating myself) and there are five teams that consider themselves in need of a QB. Dilfer is not breaking the record for biggest salary by a QB. It's a sliding scale and not pure supply and demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tay Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 @theTruthTeller You're looking at it solely from a supply/demand perspective. By your logic, we didn't overspend for Haynesworth, Sanders, etc. because someone was willing to pay that premium for those players. You must also consider opportunity costs when determining these contracts. Because of that, every franchise QB's contract matters. If we over spend based on the market and how NFL contracts market value is determined, we aren't able to build around him the same way the rest of the league builds their team around franchise QBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theTruthTeller Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 3 minutes ago, Burgold said: That's not really true. Let's say that the best QB available on the market is Trent Dilfer (yeah, dating myself) and there are five teams that consider themselves in need of a QB. Dilfer is not breaking the record for biggest salary by a QB. It's a sliding scale and not pure supply and demand. Yeah, if you put out moldy blueberries in September, no one's going to buy them at 3x the June price. Not because of the price increase, but because no one wants moldy blueberries. Just like no one bid up the remaining QBs when KC was franchised (although Glennon did okay and Tribusky, Mahomes and Kizer went way earlier than their talent level would indicate). So the moldy blueberries didn't sell, big deal. Put out some juicy, plump blueberries among the moldy ones in September, however, and they'll fly off the shelves. At the time of the tag deadline, KC could have made a huge difference in Chicago , NYJ, Jacksonville, Minn, Denver. He was, at least in some statistics, excellent in 2015 and 2016 and pretty good in all statistics. Everyone who has coached KC, loves him. But, most of all, two of those coaches want him, badly, and will drive up the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 So... you like Kirk's juicy plump blueberries, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 So, what do we offer Captain Kirk? Would he go for 22m/yr if we guaranteed 60m? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theTruthTeller Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 30 minutes ago, Tay said: @theTruthTeller You're looking at it solely from a supply/demand perspective. By your logic, we didn't overspend for Haynesworth, Sanders, etc. because someone was willing to pay that premium for those players. You must also consider opportunity costs when determining these contracts. Because of that, every franchise QB's contract matters. If we over spend based on the market and how NFL contracts market value is determined, we aren't able to build around him the same way the rest of the league builds their team around franchise QBs. I never mentioned anything about overspending, so I don't see how my logic justifies the Haynesworth deal (I was against it) or Sanders deal. You can pay market value, or even way below market value, and still overspend. There aren't guarantees about your player evaluations, or the player evaluations of teams you are competing against.. Maybe Brady is the greatest of all time because Belichek is the greatest of all time. No guarantees of a Super Bowl if he came to DC. Maybe you'll pick out a box of blueberries that looks fantastic, and they'll be sour. No one is forcing the Skins to sign Cousins, but if they let him hit the open market someone will pay as much or more than $25M/year. Because everyone whose tasted that particular box of blueberries has found them to be delicious. Ability to spend has an affect on market value in the macro sense. But in the micro sense, what one particular team is willing to spend doesn't affect market value at all. SF and Cleveland have huge cap space and both need a QB, preferably a proven QB. If the Skins don't want to pay that price, it doesn't affect Kirk's market value. That's why it's called "market" value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markmills67 Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 12 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said: So, what do we offer Captain Kirk? Would he go for 22m/yr if we guaranteed 60m? Don't think so Riggo, I think we are looking at $25m/yr and about $75/80m guaranteed. HTTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theTruthTeller Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 15 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said: So, what do we offer Captain Kirk? Would he go for 22m/yr if we guaranteed 60m? For the record, I think a high guaranteed number is the way to go. Mostly because the negotiations have been so ****ed up. The whole "let's see if he is for real" philosophy failed not because of concept of "proving it" is a bad one, but because the Skins put themselves in a position where there was no realistic alternative to Kirk whether he proved it or not. And they've continued to go down this path. The Skins have a single choice for 2018: pay Kirk too much now, pay Kirk way too much next year, or take a flyer on an unproven QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsPassion4Life Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 I wonder if you offered him 5 yrs, 110 mil (all guaranteed) gets it done....not sure I would do offer it...risky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tay Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 My best guess on an extension is 5 years, $120M, $60M fully guaranteed, $96M guaranteed for injury. That would give him 3.5 years fully guaranteed (incl the franchise tag year) and AAV right around market value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PartyPosse Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 4 hours ago, goskins10 said: Also, not sure where you get that Oakland played a "significantly more difficult" schedule that the Redskins. In terms of strength of schedule Oakland was 14th and the Redskins were 11th. No time to respond to all but I will say that you are basing that off SOS coming into the season and not the end result. Redskins' opponent combined record for 2016 is 138-116-2 where as the raiders was 144-111-1. And you can call it cherry picking but if you remove dallas' combined 20 games above 500 the redskins really faced a mediocre schedule (removing the top two for raiders would still have their opponents record at about 25 over 500). But you are correct that handpicking isn't the soundest of arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goskins10 Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 1 minute ago, PartyPosse said: No time to respond to all but I will say that you are basing that off SOS coming into the season and not the end result. Redskins' opponent combined record for 2016 is 138-116-2 where as the raiders was 144-111-1. And you can call it cherry picking but if you remove dallas' combined 20 games above 500 the redskins really faced a mediocre schedule (removing the top two for raiders would still have their opponents record at about 25 over 500). But you are correct that handpicking isn't the soundest of arguments. Sorry, but I believe you are incorrect - again. The preseason SOS was Redskins 17th - Oakland 15th. The final was Redskins 11th - Oakland 14th. I used the final and quite frankly even gave you the chart to show where the data come from. Can you please show me where your data is coming from? I believe it to be incorrect. If the chart I found is wrong - then I would really like to know. I try to be as factual as possible. As soon as you start removing parts of the data you are skewing it to make a point. The data speaks for itself. But since you insist, the final SOS for each team: Redskins 131-123-2 or 0.516: Remove dallas it goes to 105-117-2 or 0.469 Oakland 129-127 or 0.504: remove their tow opponents with the highest win/loss (KC twice at 12-4) you get 105-119 or 0.469 So please show me where the Raiders opponents were 25 games over 0.500 after removing the top 2 W/L records. Which honestly would be a really tough trick since before removing them their opponents were only 2 gms over 0.500. Even using your numbers - which I think are wrong: the resulting opponents records are: 112-110-1 for Washington and 120-103-1 for Oakland. Who did they play that had a tie? Anyway - that's still just a 17 gm difference - only 15 from Washington. Where do you get 25 from? More importantly, you made the statement that the Oakland SOS was significantly harder than the Redskins. Not seeing that in the data. Where did you come to that conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsailand Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 1 hour ago, Riggo-toni said: So, what do we offer Captain Kirk? Would he go for 22m/yr if we guaranteed 60m? I doubt it. He offered a team-friendly deal last year, which we rejected. Even a nice guy like Kirk isn't dumb enough to make that mistake twice. If I were his agent, I'd tell Bruce and Dan, "My client's plan is to take your $24M this year, your $29M next year, and hit the open market in 2019 to sign a record breaking contract with a team that is ready to make a deep playoff run. If you want a deal, you need to make an offer that's better than that." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wit33 Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 4 minutes ago, Tsailand said: I doubt it. He offered a team-friendly deal last year, which we rejected. Even a nice guy like Kirk isn't dumb enough to make that mistake twice. Fact, you have no clue if this above statement is true. The numbers reported continue to be all over the place. No one definitively knows. Unless you have some insider information or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PartyPosse Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 1 hour ago, goskins10 said: Sorry, but I believe you are incorrect - again. The preseason SOS was Redskins 17th - Oakland 15th. The final was Redskins 11th - Oakland 14th. I used the final and quite frankly even gave you the chart to show where the data come from. Can you please show me where your data is coming from? I believe it to be incorrect. If the chart I found is wrong - then I would really like to know. I try to be as factual as possible. You are correct. I was looking at records of 2017 opponents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 Gtd money in the region of 75mil should do it, he's got 60mil as good as gtd already if he plays under the tag for the next two seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PartyPosse Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 1 hour ago, Tsailand said: I doubt it. He offered a team-friendly deal last year, which we rejected. Even a nice guy like Kirk isn't dumb enough to make that mistake twice. If I were his agent, I'd tell Bruce and Dan, "My client's plan is to take your $24M this year, your $29M next year, and hit the open market in 2019 to sign a record breaking contract with a team that is ready to make a deep playoff run. If you want a deal, you need to make an offer that's better than that." IF this were the case then let him walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsailand Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 2 hours ago, wit33 said: Fact, you have no clue if this above statement is true. The numbers reported continue to be all over the place. No one definitively knows. Unless you have some insider information or something. I have the same information everyone except you has: Multiple insiders familiar with last year's negotiations leaked that Kirk was willing to sign a three year deal worth $19.5M/year, but Bruce Allen was not. This leak must have come from Kirk's agent, because it makes their side look good. The Redskins have not leaked a competing narrative, because the initial leak was true. If you're waiting for a signed statement from Kirk and Bruce about what happened last year, you'll be waiting forever. 1 hour ago, PartyPosse said: IF this were the case then let him walk. Walk now? Or after this season? Or after the $29M 2018 season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markmills67 Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 Mr TK, with 1 month to go until the franchise tag deadline, if you personally had to say yes or no to cousins signed to a LTD what would your answer be. HTTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PartyPosse Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 4 hours ago, Tsailand said: Walk now? Or after this season? Or after the $29M 2018 season? After the season. I think the team will transition tag him but won't match the absurd contract he'll end up getting. also, he doesn't have to sign the transition tag if he doesn't want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWJ Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 Bottom line: IF Snyder wants KC to be a Redskin on a LTD, it gets done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander -JB- Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Does anybody actually think Doug Williams will have a damn thing to do with Kirk Cousins contract situation? If your answer is no, you're correct. Reshuffling of front office, my ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsailand Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 1 hour ago, PartyPosse said: also, he doesn't have to sign the transition tag if he doesn't want to. Yeah, but we'd still have the right of first refusal on any contract he signs elsewhere. Also, why wouldn't he sign the transition offer sheet? One year $28.7M, and he can still negotiate with other teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.