ESPN.com: Kirk Cousins contract talks with Redskins on positive track

[purbeast]

2 minutes ago, TheShredSkinz said:

 

Common sense. For a resurrection of an earlier point, we'd have to be thick to tag him at 19-24, and not offer him that for a yearly amount......Or somewheres real close. Its been clear from day 1 (and he's basically said as much) he's milking for the most he can possibly get, probably so he'll have more to give to charity or something.

So basically, you made it up.  Thanks for clarifying.

[CommanderDOOM]

[Momma There Goes That Man]

If we go through all this and only sign him to a 3yr deal... good lord. 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

13 hours ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

Like with everything in life, there are two sides to a story and the truth. 

 

I do not think Kirk is as spiteful towards the Redskins as some fans seem to believe. I do however believe that Kirk is a man of principle and is simply expecting to be paid fair market value.

 

Contrary to doomsday Redskins fans, I don't think Bruce is a complete moron, the second coming of Vinny Cerrato, or anything of the sort. I also think linking the Cousins negotiations to any sort of ego battle/pissing contest with Scot is a stretch only cynical, battered skins fans/victims could conjure up. The most obvious reason to poke holes in that argument is that the last thing an egomaniac would want to do is have Kirk walk and win a ring for another team. If Bruce Allen really would go to any length to do the opposite of what Scot wanted, Manusky would not be our D-Coordinator right now either.

 

I do however, think Bruce is a man of principle as well. While in certain instances this has helped the Redskins immensely since his arrival, in a long drawn-out contract negotiation such as this it paints him as the cheap-skate squeaker who is an idiot for not just stroking one of Dan Snyder's checks already. 

 

I actually think weve come so far as an organization, that now with things being run properly and keeping things internal that when the media and fanbase is left to speculate they revert to the only explanation they are used to: "dysfunction is afoot at Redskins park!"

 

 

 

Obviously, all we can do is guess.  As Sheehan said recently there is an incredible amount of noise that he hears all the time and its hard for him to decipher truth from fiction.  You got Grant Paulsen who has hinted he's talked to Kirk's camp.  Keim, too.  C.  Russell, too.  Finlay.  Jones.  And you get mixed stories if you take their sources all at their word.

 

We've heard a bit of everything.  Different variations of how Bruce mishandled the negotiations.  Kirk not loving Dan-Bruce and looking to bolt (its what Paulsen has alluded to, Sheehan to a similar agree but not associating him wanting to leave to any individual).  We've heard Kirk being fine with Bruce-Dan and being more than cool as to wanting to stay.  We've got Bruce's self professed optimism about the talks and saying he's on it.  You got some reporter like JLC who agree with that.   We've heard from guys like Keim that they don't dig Kirk's agent.  A lot of stuff. 

 

I don't think we are in a definitive position to pat Bruce on the back or criticize him or know for sure what Kirk is thinking.  That's why my position is to let it all unfold.  In my book, if they get the contract done, then awesome.  They did their job.  If they blow this and a deal doesn't happen, then heck yeah I am blaming the FO and IMO its a disaster.   My feeling remains that they get this done and I'll be happy but I am not patting the FO on the back until/if that transpires.

 

I am erring on the positive side both in terms of Bruce and Kirk's motives based on what they are saying.  If you take them both at their word.  Everything is fine.  Also it has seemed intuitive to me from almost the get go that it likely would come down to the wire.  I guess we will find out soon in reality. 

 

 

[Veryoldschool]

I think there is only 15% a deal is done because the Redskins owner really is the short bus guy of NFL owners.  The Carr deal should make it easier for Snyder to submit and play the man but I don't think he will.  I think Kirk plays under the tag again.

[Spearfeather]

I'm at about 90% now that this deal gets done before the 17th.

[Skinsinparadise]

Chris Russell just now on 106.7.  He said talking to a source he knows (he seemed like he was alluding the source was from someone in Redskins Park but didn't flat out say so, in the past he did), the deal with Carr helps crystallize the market and cements the idea that Qbs getting mid 20 a year contracts are a real thing.  He thinks a 3 year deal might be more likely -- incentive on both sides.  

[Koolblue13]

3 year deal would be aggravating. 

[NickyJ]

I'd be fine with a 3 year deal. 2 years free of constant "pay the man" posts.

 

Haha, yeah right. We wouldn't make it a week without someone starting a thread about contract extensions.

[DC Lumber Co.]

25 minutes ago, NickyJ said:

I'd be fine with a 3 year deal. 2 years free of constant "pay the man" posts.

 

Haha, yeah right. We wouldn't make it a week without someone starting a thread about contract extensions.

 

3 or 5 year deal, signed or extended there will still be a sect of the fanbase clinging to the dysfunction narrative. Any relief we get from the constant "pay the man" posts will simply be replaced with "our ignorant GM/Owner overpaid Cousins and now we are doomed"...or better yet the classic Skins fans trying to create a QB controversy out of thin air after any game in which Cousins throws an interception, ie: "Bench Kirk, Start Nate Sudfeld/Colt McCoy!" threads. 

 

With that said, I'd be over the moon to get ANY deal done. 3 or 5 years, I could care less. Gives us a break from beating the dead horse and allows the team to focus on the rest of the roster. 

 

 

[Spearfeather]

3 hours ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

3 or 5 year deal, signed or extended there will still be a sect of the fanbase clinging to the dysfunction narrative.

 

 

 

No doubt about that. They enjoy it too much.

 

 

I want to see a five year deal. Longer, if that was possible.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

At this point I'd love to see a three-year deal because it would be something. It also keeps him under team control until he's 32ish so he wouldn't exactly be "entering his prime" when he's due to be a FA again. I would think that by then we'd either seen him develop and be ready to pay whatever it takes or be pretty ready to move on. Over the next 3 years we will either see heights we haven't seen in decades or be a middling-or-worse team again. You break the bank for a QB in scenario A and maybe look to trade or move on in scenario B. It also lines him up with Gruden...

[Momma There Goes That Man]

1 hour ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

I would think that by then we'd either seen him develop and be ready to pay whatever it takes or be pretty ready to move on.

 

Yeah but that's what the previous two seasons were for? Everybody said, they'd rather be sure he's worth it after 2015 and would happily overpay a sure thing if he proves it. Well he did and the Redskins still aren't ponying up to pay him a fair deal

 

In my mind, Anything short of the standard 5yr mega deal is a failure. 3yrs? No thanks 

[NickyJ]

2 hours ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

3 or 5 year deal, signed or extended there will still be a sect of the fanbase clinging to the dysfunction narrative. Any relief we get from the constant "pay the man" posts will simply be replaced with "our ignorant GM/Owner overpaid Cousins and now we are doomed"...or better yet the classic Skins fans trying to create a QB controversy out of thin air after any game in which Cousins throws an interception, ie: "Bench Kirk, Start Nate Sudfeld/Colt McCoy!" threads. 

 

With that said, I'd be over the moon to get ANY deal done. 3 or 5 years, I could care less. Gives us a break from beating the dead horse and allows the team to focus on the rest of the roster. 

 

 

I can see it now: We sign him to a 3 year deal, and someone will stoke the fire by suggesting that it's in preparation for a trade.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

3 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

3 year deal would be aggravating. 

Not for me.

 

Gives us a chance to identify and groom another QB.

[Cooleyfan1993]

6 minutes ago, BRAVEONAWARPATH said:

Not for me.

 

Gives us a chance to identify and groom another QB.

Or gives us a chance to sign Kirk to an even longer term deal after the 3 years is up 

[Koolblue13]

6 minutes ago, BRAVEONAWARPATH said:

Not for me.

 

Gives us a chance to identify and groom another QB.

I'd love for it to be like LT is for us. Just spoiled, ya know. Like we just always have one. Sign Kirk for 7 and worry about it in a few years or hope some late rounder beats him out.

Just now, Cooleyfan1993 said:

Or gives us a chance to sign Kirk to an even longer term deal after the 3 years is up 

Or franchise him a couple more times. 

[goskins10]

A 3 year deal makes no sense at all. You can franchise him and keep him 2 already. Why do through all that just to lock him up for 1 more year? I think most of this from the media is just pissing in the wind. Both the team and Kirk and his agent are keeping quiet about the negotiations. Usually one side cracks and starts playing in the media. So far neither side has done that and it's driving the media crazy.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Yeah but that's what the previous two seasons were for? Everybody said, they'd rather be sure he's worth it after 2015 and would happily overpay a sure thing if he proves it. Well he did and the Redskins still aren't ponying up to pay him a fair deal

 

In my mind, Anything short of the standard 5yr mega deal is a failure. 3yrs? No thanks 

 

 

Until July 17th comes and goes you have no idea if this is true or not. And please, don't say if they gave him a fair deal he would sign it. There is no way his agent let's him sign any offer unless it's just plain off the charts - which rightly so the Redskins will not do.

 

I like the way people are already positioning themselves to be pissed no matter what the deal is. "Anything short of the standard 5 yr deal". What exactly os wrong with a 4 yr deal. The guarantees mean the contract are really on 3 yrs in terms of the player. The team then has complete control for the final 2 yrs. What if Kirk's agent is telling him, 4 yrs gets the guarantees then you will be looking for an extension when the new CBA comes up. If Kirk will not sign a 5 year deal how is that on the team?

 

38 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

I'd love for it to be like LT is for us. Just spoiled, ya know. Like we just always have one. Sign Kirk for 7 and worry about it in a few years or hope some late rounder beats him out.

Or franchise him a couple more times. 

 

I know you were mostly kidding - be to be fair Kirk can only be tagged one more time in his career after this.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

19 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

A 3 year deal makes no sense at all. You can franchise him and keep him 2 already. Why do through all that just to lock him up for 1 more year?

 

Because:

 

1) There's no guarantee he signs the transition tag

 

2) If we transition tag him there's the chance (however small) that it will cost even more to sign him

 

3) 3 yrs/ $72M is preferable to 2 yr/ $52M

 

4) A yearly renting of your franchise QB 3 years in a row can never be a good thing

 

5) If the team achieves some real success during the next three seasons it gives Cousins more incentive to stay

 

5) Better than decent chance that teams crushing for Cousins now with a ton of cap space will have moved on by 2020, and their cap space would be smaller

 

6) Eliminates uncertainty for the team better than FT after FT after FT would...

 

7) Gives the team 3 uninterrupted years to work on an extension, without the FT deadlines and lets them keep negotiating during the season instead of having to wait until mid-February

 

 

[zoony]

Not sure exactly why, but I think I feel less optimistic than I ever have that a deal gets done.  My gut is starting to tell me he is gone after this year.  Just too much baggage at this point from both sides

 

Sigh, hope Im wrong

[PartyPosse]

2 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Yeah but that's what the previous two seasons were for? Everybody said, they'd rather be sure he's worth it after 2015 and would happily overpay a sure thing if he proves it. Well he did and the Redskins still aren't ponying up to pay him a fair deal

 

In my mind, Anything short of the standard 5yr mega deal is a failure. 3yrs? No thanks 

Well, while the numbers were decent, 2016 was no different than 2015 in terms of number of good games to subpar ones. The difference is that in 2015 a majority of his bad games came in the first half of the season when he was learning to be a #1 starter. In 2016, they were scattered. For example, and I will use Rating as a benchmark here where 91.2 is the 16th ranked QB (so halfway mark). 7 of Kirk's 16 games were below that mark. in 2015 the mark of 16th best was 92.3 and Kirk still had 7 of his 16 games below that mark. The difference is that in 2015, 6 of those came in the first 8 games while in 2016 they were all over the map. 

 

In other words, he actually showed more consistency in 2015 than he did last year. 

[goskins10]

57 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Because:

 

1) There's no guarantee he signs the transition tag - If he doesn't sign he has to be willing to hold out. Why would you hold out when you are guaranteed at least $28M and then become a FA with no chance of being tagged?

 

2) If we transition tag him there's the chance (however small) that it will cost even more to sign him - Fair - but it's a small risk. Despite the doom and gloom, the fact is there are just not many if any teams ready to pay any QB more than $28M, not even for just one year.

 

3) 3 yrs/ $72M is preferable to 2 yr/ $52M - Fair but let's but my point is it's not really much better. If you can't lock him up for 4 or 5 yrs, may as well just play the FT thing and hope to sign him next year. I do not like this idea and don't want them to do it but it still makes more sense than a 3 yr deal.

 

4) A yearly renting of your franchise QB 3 years in a row can never be a good thing - I agree but a 3 yr deal is just one additional year and that's my point. If you don't; want him past 3 yrs then you should not sign him for 3. Transition tag him and draft another QB.

 

5) If the team achieves some real success during the next three seasons it gives Cousins more incentive to stay - He already has $44M reasons to stay. If he is not sold on by now, then move on. 

 

5) Better than decent chance that teams crushing for Cousins now with a ton of cap space will have moved on by 2020, and their cap space would be smaller - There will always be someone else. There are always QB needy teams and most have mega CAP space because they are not currently paying a franchise QB. It may be different teams - but there will always be someone.

 

6) Eliminates uncertainty for the team better than FT after FT after FT would... Same as #4 - you are repeating... lol

 

7) Gives the team 3 uninterrupted years to work on an extension, without the FT deadlines and lets them keep negotiating during the season instead of having to wait until mid-February - This is more just kicking the can down the street for later. Again, just FT him again if you are going to do that. You still have the same problem as it's not like the FT resets. His next tag after this would be 3 and he would get compensated accordingly.

 

 

 

While I appreciate the effort, I am not buying it. See above for direct answers. Ultimately I just do not see 3 yrs as that much better than 2 for the team. It does not help the team. And honestly I am surprised you listed potential advantages to the team as they are minimal at best - which again was my point.

 

Now for Kirk? I can see it being very beneficial for him. The lack of a completely guaranteed contract means that anything past the guaranteed money in terms of years - which base on the last 2 contracts is roughly 3 yrs, benefits the team, not the player. So Kirk's team may want that. If Kirk is seeking a 3yr deal - I am not saying he is, just presenting it as a potential - I would think a 4 yr deal would be more palatable for both sides - meet in the middle as the team would likely want a 5 yr deal. 

 

May have to agree to disagree here. I am just not seeing the benefit to the team to giving him a 3 yr deal. It would all be different if both were to be fully guaranteed. But it will not be.

 

[SkinsPassion4Life]

If it's a 3 year deal, it will be an extension....so in reality it's a 4 year deal

[goskins10]

2 minutes ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

If it's a 3 year deal, it will be an extension....so in reality it's a 4 year deal

 

No focusing this on you as the messenger - That does make more sense but they should be clearer when they talk about it. Admittedly I don't listen to those radio stations and refused to read the garbage so when I hear 3 yr deal I think starting immediately.

[SkinsPassion4Life]

59 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

No focusing this on you as the messenger - That does make more sense but they should be clearer when they talk about it. Admittedly I don't listen to those radio stations and refused to read the garbage so when I hear 3 yr deal I think starting immediately.

 

It's possible it could be 3 years starting this year, but it's more likely to be an extension.

 

I think the only way this deal gets done is on a shorter deal....like a 3 year extension...that's fully guaranteed..or close to it.

 

it would be a 4 year deal, including this year...somewhere around 100 mil....and at least 90 guaranteed.