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

[Conn]

5 hours ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

Evidence?  We have had 20 years of men with titles of GM or Presidents of the Redskins presenting themselves as having authority we later learned they didn't really exercise.  They have served as shields for Snyder and Snyder disposed of them when the public learned to see through it.  Judging by your comment and those by others Allen still is an effective shield since you believe Bruce Allen exercises authority.

 

There is no evidence thay Snyder has dictated football moves since at least Shanahan, and we cannot beleive a word he says about the Griffin trade. I remember the look on his face and the banana in his pocket at that pro day, he was not muscled into that trade. Either way there's no evidence Snyder is running anything football related other than being in the loop on big financial decisions. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

4 hours ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

I enjoyed your post but I remember things differently.  I believe exercising the option for 16M was done on Scot's watch and I remember thinking the day it was announced that it was Scot way of telling Griffin to quickly start to produce in a WCO or else, a kiss of death.

I kindof remember the Griffin option as Dan/Bruce saying, "We're going to do absolutely everything possible to show that you're the guy, you have no competition, and you're going to be here forever." Kindof a coddling to give him every opportunity to succeed.  I personally don't think GMSM would have picked up the option if left to his own devises, given the way 2014 had played out.  

 

4 hours ago, Veryoldschool said:

As for your thesis that Cousins isn't a top 5 QB I disagree and apparently the Skins do also since they gave Kirk a top 5 salary in 2016 and have agreed to provide Cousins a top 5 salary in 2017 as well.  So naturally Kirk's agent is going to use Kirk's 24M 2017 salary as a base in his discussions with the team, after all if Kirk isn't worth 24M why did the team agree to pay 24M this year.  Of course there is the top 5 results Cousins has produced on the field, is Kirk's agent suppose to ignore the results as well as the Top 5 salary Kirk as been paid for 2 seasons also in the discussions? 

Cousins isn't a top 5 QB.  Not even Kevin Sheehan, who is moonlighting as Cousin's PR guy and agent at the same time, believes that Cousins is a top 5 QB.  

 

As I said, the absolutely worst thing they did is not come to an agreement in 2015 on a long term deal, and then tagging Cousins.  This gave him a top-5 salary, and leverage.  They've been trying to negotiate him off of the number ever since.  If the 'Skins REALLY thought he was a top 5 player, then they would have given him the Andrew Luck deal and been done with it.  But they don't, he's not, and they ****ed up by tagging him, providing him that leverage.

 

As far as reference, in the top 100 NFL players voted by NFL players, Cousins will be approximately the 13th QB on the list. (They're up to the top 20, so we don't have the full list yet.)  This is not a definitive list, but it can be used as a notional measuring stick. So far we have #22 Ben Rothlisburger, #24 Russell Wilson, #31 Matt Stafford #44 Cam Newton, #50 Marcus Mariota, #51 Andrew Luck, #57 Jameis Winston all above #70 Kirk Cousins.  That's 7. Ryan, Carr, Brady, Brees and Rodgers haven't been mentioned yet. They will all be in the top 100 above Cousins.  (I also think that Dak is going to be on the list, though I think that's a joke. But Griffin was on the list very high up after his sensational rookie season also.)

 

You can argue some of these guys, but the fact is that the players view Cousins as the ~12/13th best QB in the league. The team has said that he's "The best of the good." That's about 12/13.  

 

The reason the team agreed to pay him $24m this year is because they didn't want him to hit the open market, and it was essentially their only choice.  The reason is that Kirk is starting his negotiation at $24m/year with 3 years guaranteed over 5 years, or something like that.  They don't want to pay that, so they had to tag him to keep control so they can continue to try and pay him about $20/year, because that's what they think he's worth.  The very fact they HAD to tag him indicates that they don't believe he's worth $24 million per year over 5 years.  

 

4 hours ago, Veryoldschool said:

Cousins will get a top deal from the Skins or his next employer in 2018 or 2019.  If the Skins had any brains for running a successful franchise they would have agreed to a big contract after 2015 or immediately after 2016 but sadly Dan Snyder is a marketing guy who grinds old widows over long term ticket deals and lacks the grace to generously pay Cousins without generating drama and bad feelings.   

 

 

I understand that you have an ax to grind, and I've ground the same ax at times.  But this is just silly.  Well, the first part isn't, but the second is.  The "they should have signed him before 2016" is correct.  The "Snyder is a marketing guy and grinds widows over ticket deals is just sour grapes.  

 

#1 The woman signed a contract and was in breach of contract.  Should the 'Skins have gone after her?  Probably not, they probably should have tried to find another way out of it. However I signed EXACTLY the same contract (well, the 3 year version not the 10 year version, and for a higher dollar amount per year).  I think in 2005 or 2006, and I was a premium season ticket holder.  It's a 3 year contract, with language that says you have to pay, or the team can take action to get the contract value.  If you can't pay it, don't sign it.If you do sign it, you have to pay it.  It's the same as if you signed a year long gym membership and then wanted out after 2 months. Sorry sucker, you're stuck paying for all 12 months.  It's contract law.  And, FWIW, it wasn't a widow.  Or if it was, that fact has just about nothing to do with the case. It was a 72 year old woman who just signed a 10 year, $5,300/year contract for lodge seats.  From the Washington Post article. 

 

Quote

Last year, Hill's real estate sales were hit hard by the housing market crash, and she told the team that she could no longer afford her $5,300-a-year contract for two loge seats behind the end zone. Hill said she asked the Redskins to waive her contract for a year or two.

The sales office declined.

On Oct. 8, the Redskins sued Hill in Prince George's County Circuit Court for backing out of a 10-year ticket-renewal agreement after the first year. The team sought payment for every season through 2017, plus interest, attorneys' fees and court costs.

 

When I read this, I think, how the hell does a person make a $66k, 10 year commitment at 72 years old if they don't already have the money in the bank to do it?  That's just stupid.  We have no idea if the team tried to work out a payment plan (I know they do this).

 

Here's something else:

Quote

Redskins General Counsel David Donovan said the lawsuits are a last resort that involve a small percentage of the team's 20,000 annual premium seat contracts. He added that the team has accommodated people in hard-luck circumstances hundreds of times. He said he was unaware of Pat Hill's case.

I mean, the guy could be lying.  But if the general counsel didn't know about the case, I'm pretty sure Snyder didn't.  

 

#2 As I outlined, for legitimate reasons, they didn't want to lock up Cousins long term after the 2015 season.  1 year of pretty good results, they weren't sold on a 5 year, 100 million dollar investment.  I can't blame them for that point of view, though I didn't share it. They wanted to pay him around $16 million a year, he wanted $19 million, and they couldn't come to an agreement.  And here we are.  I do think that the team will pay Cousins.  And they will over-pay him because he's going to get a top 5 contract, and he's not a top 5 QB. 

 

 

 

 

[Thirtyfive2seven]

Resign Kirk and the pitchforks stay neatly put away for Bruce Allen..

[Conn]

3 minutes ago, Thirtyfive2seven said:

Resign Kirk and the pitchforks stay neatly put away for Bruce Allen..

 

He (and the rest of the braintrust whose jobs depend on us not having a top-10 draft pick at any point in the next few years) has to know this. He has to. It's his only shot, basically guaranteeing seasons above .500 is the only play from where he's sitting. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I kind of remember the Griffin option as Dan/Bruce saying, "We're going to do absolutely everything possible to show that you're the guy, you have no competition, and you're going to be here forever." Kindof a coddling to give him every opportunity to succeed.  I personally don't think GMSM would have picked up the option if left to his own devises, given the way 2014 had played out.  

 

 

#1 The woman signed a contract and was in breach of contract.  Should the 'Skins have gone after her?  Probably not, they probably should have tried to find another way out of it.

 

 

Just for clarity:

 

1) I don't think Scot would have been bothered taking the 5th year option on Griffin, since there were very few situations in which they'd have to pay it even if they decided to move on from him. As well as, Scot was in no way convinced on Cousins after the 2015 training camp ended. So picking up Griffin's 5th year option would have probably seemed like a smart decision at that point.

 

2) The Skins did try to "find another way" to settle the account issue with the woman. Suing her was not their first action or choice, they tried other ways first.

[Est.1974]

30 minutes ago, Thirtyfive2seven said:

Resign Kirk and the pitchforks stay neatly put away for Bruce Allen..

 

Im sure that is Bruce's plan. 

[Dissident2]

What's so insane about the way all this has been handled, and the same was true last year to a lesser extent, is that the team is actually operating from a position of hoping their starting quarterback sucks. That is insane, but so true to the M.O. of our brain(dead)trust.

 

On the surface, not signing him up last year made some semblance of sense. He hadn't really proven himself longterm yet. They wanted to see more. Fine. He showed more. Plenty more. You'd think they would've made contingency plans before making that decision to cover themselves and swoop in with a deal if Cousins exceeded expectations as he did. Nope. 

 

Now they're the only team in NFL history who've tagged their QB twice, and they've made things almost untenable as far as the gigantic offer they'll need to make to Cousins to keep him after this season. I can totally see them (some of them) hoping that Cousins falls apart this season because it will make things easier and somewhat exonerate them for their insane lack of foresight. That's how warped some of these guys are. Instead of recognizing the kind of player and human being you have in Kirk Cousins and rewarding him, something that could set you up at QB for years AND would help soften the blow of the RG3 bust (since Cousins was part of that draft class), you undercut him on your offers, jerk him around and back yourself into a corner you may now not be able to escape from. 

 

Absolute lunacy how they've botched this. 

 

 

[PartyPosse]

On 6/12/2017 at 9:16 AM, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I have to nitpick. You can argue that the team made a defendable decision after 2015, but it's most certainly turned out to not be the "smart" decision not to sign Cousins. They'd have him on a much cheaper deal right now than they can get him for. So, by definition, it became the wrong choice. Again, I was OK with it at the time as well. But results are results and it would have been the smart decision to sign him. 

Right or wrong doesn't have the benefit of hindsight. It's lazy and a poor argument to debate something that requires knowing the future. The difference between making the "right" decision that ends up costing the team an extra 4-6 mill a year vs making the "wrong" decision (he falls apart and becomes terrible) costs the team 18-20 million a year or, based on Houston's predicament, a second round draft pick - even though it probably would have cost more since Brock's contract could essentially be terminated after one year with minimal cap damage where Kirk's probably would have been a lot more detrimental to a team's position over a longer period of time. 

8 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

Absolute lunacy how they've botched this. 

 

You see time and time again teams hamstrung by bad contracts, yet many are more forgivable because they're not at the QB position. He had a good run in 2015, team wanted to see more, he took it personally, That's how I see it. I've no problem paying him, but to me it seems clear as day this is a personal grudge against the organization. So many claiming this has been botched are 100% relying on the hindsight 20/20 argument. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

Just now, Califan007 said:

 

Just for clarity:

 

1) I don't think Scot would have been bothered taking the 5th year option on Griffin, since there were very few situations in which they'd have to pay it even if they decided to move on from him. As well as, Scot was in no way convinced on Cousins after the 2015 training camp ended. So picking up Griffin's 5th year option would have probably seemed like a smart decision at that point.

 

2) The Skins did try to "find another way" to settle the account issue with the woman. Suing her was not their first action or choice, they tried other ways first.

Actually, I think that the option hurt Griffin more than it hurt him.  There was no way he was getting on the field because of the injury clause, unless he was the starter.  

 

I still don't think that it was GMSM's idea to do it.  Based on 2014 results, it was a little ludicrous because there's no way that anybody thought Griffin was worth the $16.2 million dollar option for 2016.  I'm pretty sure GMSM would have preferred to let Griffin play out year 4, and then renegotiate based on that. Because even if he had won the starting job, it's possible that he wouldn't have commanded that level of salary in 2016.  

 

Ironic, the 5th year option that was picked up on Griffin was either the same, or slightly higher than the offer the team made to Cousins for 2016.  I think I heard that they offered him 14-16/year.  But I can't remember exactly.  When they had committed 16 to Griffin coming off of a year where he couldn't stay healthy or play a lick.  

 

I still think that all the Griffin stuff was driven by Dan/Bruce, and GMSM sorta went along with it as long as it did no harm.  And they had to pick up the option in April, well before training camp.  I think the decision to pick up the option and any thought of Cousins being the starter were 2 completely separate thoughts at the time.  Picking up a $16.2 million dollar option on a player who had just had a second consecutive horrendous season was pretty soundly ridiculous. The thought that Cousins would emerge as a record setting QB at that time was also somewhat ridiculous.  My guess is that GMSM honestly thouhgt he'd have to go out and get 3 new QBs after the 2015 season.  The fact Cousins worked out was kindof a bonus. 

[PartyPosse]

13 hours ago, Destino said:

Put Kirk on the Texans and he's cruising to double digit wins and playoffs.

So by that logic Kirk would have given the Texans.... 1 extra win over what they got from Brock. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

7 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

You see time and time again teams hamstrung by bad contracts, yet many are more forgivable because they're not at the QB position. He had a good run in 2015, team wanted to see more, he took it personally, That's how I see it. I've no problem paying him, but to me it seems clear as day this is a personal grudge against the organization. So many claiming this has been botched are 100% relying on the hindsight 20/20 argument. 

I disagree entirely.  I don't think he took it personally and I don't think that he holds a grudge.  They thought his value after 2015 was ~$15/16 million a year, he thought it was $18/19 million, they paid him the franchise tag of $20 million. 

 

The problem is that Kirk's team are smart negotiators.  As soon as the 'Skins slapped the tag on him, THEY set the ceiling of negotiations for the remaining part of the 2016 off-season at $20 million per year.  So through July 2016, they couldn't get anything done.  

 

Then, with the 2017 tag looming, Kirk knew that the entry point for a contract has to be at least the $24 mil/year tag for 5 years with 3 years guaranteed.  The team doesn't think he's worth that, so they haven't offered it.  

 

I don't think there's anything personal about it.  It's all contract negotiations. The only way we'll know if it's a grudge is if the team offers him the Andrew Luck deal and he turns it down.  Until then, the sides differ on value, and therefor no agreement has been reached.  It's pretty simple.  

3 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

So by that logic Kirk would have given the Texans.... 1 extra win over what they got from Brock. 

Kirk Cousins on the Texans = SB contender.  Texans might have the best roster minus QB in the NFL.  They had the #1 or #2 defense last year, and whatshisnugget was injured all year.  

[PartyPosse]

7 hours ago, onedrop said:

 sure IF we didnt have, you know, professionals handling that kind of thing. capped, uncapped it DOESNT MATTER. but forget the money and go back and read the character insult regarding Kirk faking his demeanor. that is what caused my initial response. care to posit PP's defense on that one as well....or should we wait for them?

My own personal observations are exactly that... my own personal observations. It's apparently ok to bash FO staff but god forbid someone question the character of the team's new golden boy. 

 

If you want to sit there and spend your time convincing me that I have some sort of secret angst against a player making money then have a good time. I've made my point regarding my issues with the contract negotiations and my concerns with the detriments of a big contract on a finite among of money available to the team's players each year. Like I've said, teams rarely if ever win by overpaying prior to success. Seattle didn't, Baltimore didn't, New England, Pitts, Giants, Packers, none of them overpaid because of potential. 

[Veryoldschool]

6 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I kindof remember the Griffin option as Dan/Bruce saying, "We're going to do absolutely everything possible to show that you're the guy, you have no competition, and you're going to be here forever." Kindof a coddling to give him every opportunity to succeed.  I personally don't think GMSM would have picked up the option if left to his own devises, given the way 2014 had played out.  

 

Cousins isn't a top 5 QB.  Not even Kevin Sheehan, who is moonlighting as Cousin's PR guy and agent at the same time, believes that Cousins is a top 5 QB.  

 

As I said, the absolutely worst thing they did is not come to an agreement in 2015 on a long term deal, and then tagging Cousins.  This gave him a top-5 salary, and leverage.  They've been trying to negotiate him off of the number ever since.  If the 'Skins REALLY thought he was a top 5 player, then they would have given him the Andrew Luck deal and been done with it.  But they don't, he's not, and they ****ed up by tagging him, providing him that leverage.

 

As far as reference, in the top 100 NFL players voted by NFL players, Cousins will be approximately the 13th QB on the list. (They're up to the top 20, so we don't have the full list yet.)  This is not a definitive list, but it can be used as a notional measuring stick. So far we have #22 Ben Rothlisburger, #24 Russell Wilson, #31 Matt Stafford #44 Cam Newton, #50 Marcus Mariota, #51 Andrew Luck, #57 Jameis Winston all above #70 Kirk Cousins.  That's 7. Ryan, Carr, Brady, Brees and Rodgers haven't been mentioned yet. They will all be in the top 100 above Cousins.  (I also think that Dak is going to be on the list, though I think that's a joke. But Griffin was on the list very high up after his sensational rookie season also.)

 

You can argue some of these guys, but the fact is that the players view Cousins as the ~12/13th best QB in the league. The team has said that he's "The best of the good." That's about 12/13.  

 

The reason the team agreed to pay him $24m this year is because they didn't want him to hit the open market, and it was essentially their only choice.  The reason is that Kirk is starting his negotiation at $24m/year with 3 years guaranteed over 5 years, or something like that.  They don't want to pay that, so they had to tag him to keep control so they can continue to try and pay him about $20/year, because that's what they think he's worth.  The very fact they HAD to tag him indicates that they don't believe he's worth $24 million per year over 5 years.  

 

I understand that you have an ax to grind, and I've ground the same ax at times.  But this is just silly.  Well, the first part isn't, but the second is.  The "they should have signed him before 2016" is correct.  The "Snyder is a marketing guy and grinds widows over ticket deals is just sour grapes.  

 

#1 The woman signed a contract and was in breach of contract.  Should the 'Skins have gone after her?  Probably not, they probably should have tried to find another way out of it. However I signed EXACTLY the same contract (well, the 3 year version not the 10 year version, and for a higher dollar amount per year).  I think in 2005 or 2006, and I was a premium season ticket holder.  It's a 3 year contract, with language that says you have to pay, or the team can take action to get the contract value.  If you can't pay it, don't sign it.If you do sign it, you have to pay it.  It's the same as if you signed a year long gym membership and then wanted out after 2 months. Sorry sucker, you're stuck paying for all 12 months.  It's contract law.  And, FWIW, it wasn't a widow.  Or if it was, that fact has just about nothing to do with the case. It was a 72 year old woman who just signed a 10 year, $5,300/year contract for lodge seats.  From the Washington Post article. 

 

 

When I read this, I think, how the hell does a person make a $66k, 10 year commitment at 72 years old if they don't already have the money in the bank to do it?  That's just stupid.  We have no idea if the team tried to work out a payment plan (I know they do this).

 

Here's something else:

I mean, the guy could be lying.  But if the general counsel didn't know about the case, I'm pretty sure Snyder didn't.  

 

#2 As I outlined, for legitimate reasons, they didn't want to lock up Cousins long term after the 2015 season.  1 year of pretty good results, they weren't sold on a 5 year, 100 million dollar investment.  I can't blame them for that point of view, though I didn't share it. They wanted to pay him around $16 million a year, he wanted $19 million, and they couldn't come to an agreement.  And here we are.  I do think that the team will pay Cousins.  And they will over-pay him because he's going to get a top 5 contract, and he's not a top 5 QB. 

 

 

 

 

 

1.  Scot Mccloughan was hired of 1/5/2015.  Scot Mccloughan announced the Redskins were going to exercise the 5 th year option on Griffin April 27, 2015, so definitely on Scot's watch so his decision.  My first thought when this was announced was are you nuts Mccloughan Griffin sucks!  Then I thought about the injury clause and concluded it was a very shrewd passive aggressive move because the risk of paying an injured Griffin 16M in 2016 would mean a short runway for Griffin in 2015.  I thought then that Mccoughan had reviewed the film spoke to Gruden and knew that Griffin was not going to be able to perform in a WCO and set about setting in motion the terms of Griffins departure while applauding Griffin and pleasing Snyder at the same time, smart.

 

2.  Like or not statistically Kirk's top 5 and in terms of compensation he is top 5.  You are welcome to your opinion on whether he is top 5 or not but not your own set of facts.  By the statistical standards QB performance is measure Kirk is top 5.  I would add to that I can't think of 5 players would I expect to be better than Kirk over the next 5 years.  Can Brady, Brees and the other top older players be expected to play as well for another 5?  Not nearly as likely as 28 year old Cousins continuing to perform or improve or the next 5.  What about the other young guys?  Maybe you can pick out 5 you like better over the next 5 years than Kirk, I can not.

 

The Redskins are in the ridiculous position of trying to convince a player they agreed to pay a top 5 salary twice to take less.  Of course Cousins agent is going to say no thanks to that, why would Cousins agree to a pay cut when his talent is on the rise after starting just 2 seasons?  Kirk is 28 and while most of the other top 5 guys are nearing retirement so why would Kirk about to enter his prime settle for less than a top 5 salary and an enormous guarantee?  No reason whatsoever and he won't.  After another successful year the Skins will have to tag him again for 30M or watch the most valuable Skins player in a generation sign a top 5 deal with someone else for 125-150M over 5 years.

 

[Conn]

27 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

he took it personally, That's how I see it. I've no problem paying him, but to me it seems clear as day this is a personal grudge against the organization.

 

No offense (and I'm not expecting a response since you didn't respond to my last post that deconstructed your argument), but you're projecting here. He hasn't been offered what he knows he's worth on the open market, so he hasn't signed. There's nothing personal about that.

[Destino]

19 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

So by that logic Kirk would have given the Texans.... 1 extra win over what they got from Brock. 

I was unaware double digits meant exactly 10.  

[PartyPosse]

10 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

No offense (and I'm not expecting a response since you didn't respond to my last post that deconstructed your argument), but you're projecting here. He hasn't been offered what he knows he's worth on the open market, so he hasn't signed. There's nothing personal about that.

I absolutely am projecting. I've made it very clear that i am basing my arguments off of my own opinions based on my own observations, as we all are. 

 

Teams, as i've said, make bad decisions. His worth on the open market, to me, is based off of teams continuing to be willing to make bad decisions. And, to me, he isn't worth the market value from teams who continually make bad decisions. 

5 minutes ago, Destino said:

I was unaware double digits meant exactly 10.  

My point was the team probably would have been better off had they not made a poor contract decision for their QB. It cost them at least a second rounder and who knows how far they would/could have gone with a mediocre veteran behind center? The team was built to win now and taking a chance on an unknown commodity cost them dearly. 

[PartyPosse]

27 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

  I would add to that I can't think of 5 players would I expect to be better than Kirk over the next 5 years.  

 

This is ridiculous but for the hell of it: Rodgers, Newton, Ryan, Mariota, Winston, Carr, Wilson

 

I even left off Brees, Brady, Big Ben etc.

[onedrop]

28 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

My own personal observations are exactly that... my own personal observations. It's apparently ok to bash FO staff but god forbid someone question the character of the team's new golden boy. 

 

If you want to sit there and spend your time convincing me that I have some sort of secret angst against a player making money then have a good time. I've made my point regarding my issues with the contract negotiations and my concerns with the detriments of a big contract on a finite among of money available to the team's players each year. Like I've said, teams rarely if ever win by overpaying prior to success. Seattle didn't, Baltimore didn't, New England, Pitts, Giants, Packers, none of them overpaid because of potential. 

ok, im sorry, you have no bias towards KC at all......moving on

[PartyPosse]

3 minutes ago, onedrop said:

ok, im sorry, you have no bias towards KC at all......moving on

I 100% do. I've made it pretty obvious. I don't think he's proven he's an elite QB yet expects to be paid like one. 

 

I've never hid my personal feelings about him amid the whole situation. 

[Destino]

14 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

 

My point was the team probably would have been better off had they not made a poor contract decision for their QB. It cost them at least a second rounder and who knows how far they would/could have gone with a mediocre veteran behind center? The team was built to win now and taking a chance on an unknown commodity cost them dearly. 

Mediocre vets like say... Schaub, Fitzpatrick, and Hoyer?  Seems like we do know how that would have gone and it explains why they gambled on Brock.  

[PartyPosse]

9 minutes ago, Destino said:

Mediocre vets like say... Schaub, Fitzpatrick, and Hoyer?  Seems like we do know how that would have gone and it explains why they gambled on Brock.  

Hoyer should have still been starting on that team. They made a big mistake benching him for Mallett and then letting him go.

 

I guarantee he would have been a much better QB for that team than Brock.

[Dissident2]

1 hour ago, PartyPosse said:

You see time and time again teams hamstrung by bad contracts, yet many are more forgivable because they're not at the QB position. He had a good run in 2015, team wanted to see more, he took it personally, That's how I see it. I've no problem paying him, but to me it seems clear as day this is a personal grudge against the organization. So many claiming this has been botched are 100% relying on the hindsight 20/20 argument. 

 

Come on, man. There is absolutely ZERO evidence of that. They didn't pay him last year, he came out and lit it up again. No complaints, no problems caused in the locker room, not a bad word said about the organization, etc. He did everything asked of him and more. The guy is not and has never shown himself to be the grudge-holding type. He simply wants what he's worth. You may not think he's "elite," but the market says otherwise. Those are just simple facts. 

 

I'm not relying on hindsight as it pertains to Cousins' performance to show that this situation has been botched. I'm relying on the simple fact that NO TEAM in the entire history of the NFL has EVER been in this situation with their franchise QB. Never. No QB has ever been franchised twice. It's uncharted territory for a reason. It's been totally botched. 

 

 

[RedBeast]

If a Super Bowl winning quarterback GM can't resign Kirk Cousins than we are **** out of luck

 

Or vice president of whatever his job is

[Dissident2]

3 minutes ago, RedBeast said:

If a Super Bowl winning quarterback GM can't resign Kirk Cousins than we are **** out of luck

 

Or vice president of whatever his job is

 

Clear as mud with this FO. As always. 

[Skinsinparadise]

5 hours ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

Kirks going to get his money fairly soon, probably what we've all been saying for months.

 

The Front Office 'boys' will want to look good real soon. Look how clever we are........

 

Hope so, it makes sense.  I don't love today's announcement to say the least.  But IMO the one thing that could save that operation is Kirk.  If Kirk is gone coupled with what we got cooking in the FO, its potential disaster IMO.  Some highlights from an ESPN article today below:

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/19617210/all-ways-kirk-cousins-washington-redskins-hit-jackpot-comes-after

 

"It feels like a mistake for Washington to let it get this far," another source said. "If they're going to end up making him the highest-paid player, they should have done it by now. It's costing them more to wait."

The answer to that is, possibly, that Washington doesn't want to make Cousins the league's highest-paid player because it doesn't think he's that good. 

...

But regardless, market scarcity drives these things. The facts are that there aren't enough quarterbacks to go around, and Cousins is 28 years old with 9,083 yards and 54 touchdown passes over the past two seasons.

So, if Washington can't get Cousins signed by July 15 and doesn't want to make him the league's highest-paid player, that leaves a few possibilities:

...

One source with knowledge of the talks told me Washington is optimistic that it can get a deal done for something in the range of $22 million per year. But an agent to whom I mentioned that said Cousins would be crazy to do a deal for $22 million per year when he already gets $24 million this season -- fully guaranteed -- by signing the one-year franchise tag. So I said, "Well, what if he gets it all guaranteed?" And the agent said, "Yeah, then you could do that deal."

This is the white whale of NFL contract negotiations: the fully guaranteed veteran deal. Many agents and NFLPA types hoped Luck or Russell Wilson would take a stand and push for full guarantees in their recent deals, but neither did. Luck's deal, which he did prior to his fifth-year option season, was worth up to $122.97 million over five years, but only $47 million of that was guaranteed at signing. "Only?" you ask? Yes, "only." As in, $13 million less than the $60 million in full guarantees defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh got from the Dolphins when he reached the free-agent market in 2015.

 

...Could Cousins buck the trend? Another agent suggested that if Washington wants to do the deal at $22 million per year, Cousins should tell them, "Sure, as long as it's all guaranteed." Something like $66 million for three years or $88 million for four. Or if not a full guarantee, a historically significant percentage. Perhaps three years, $70 million (which the team can sell as a relative bargain at $23.3 million per year), with $60 million guaranteed (which the player, agent and union can celebrate as a record). If he beats Luck's deal, the market will take off, because surely the more accomplished Stafford (with one year left on his deal) can go to the Lions and demand more than what Cousins received. If Cousins gets a fully guaranteed deal, the effect on NFL contracts could be even more major.