Common Kirk....I just don't know....

[OVCChairman]

Kirk has won his gamble, and won it big time.  The team botched it when we didnt sign him long term, so he bet on himself, and the market for him exploded.  Teams are desperate for starting caliber QBs, and the ones who tend to overpay via free agency, USUALLY end up having issues as the contract develops.  At this point in the process we have to look at the Kirk situation as if we're a team looking to sign a free agent, and not one that has the 'rights' to first dibs of a player.  We are not in any position to have any better chance at getting Kirk back than if he was currently playing for another team this year, and would be made available at the beginning of the new league year.

 

If you can take that approach, do you sign him?  Say Kirk is currently playing for Houston, all things parallel, and we know he's going to be a free agent at the end of the year.   Do you want OUR team to pay him what the market will bare?  Do you want us to dish out $25 mil to bring him to Washington?  

[Darrell Green Fan]

If the alternative is Colt McCoy the answer is yes.  Why even play the season if your starter is Colt McCoy?

[OVCChairman]

10 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

If the alternative is Colt McCoy the answer is yes.  Why even play the season if your starter is Colt McCoy?

Or you plan for a different direction.

 

And take into account, that he may choose to sign elsewhere, even if the offers are similar 

[Koolblue13]

After his comment about why he will only sign a OYD, I truly believe he's gone next year. I'm fine with that. 

[Est.1974]

9 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

After his comment about why he will only sign a OYD, I truly believe he's gone next year. I'm fine with that. 

 

I agree. I really can't see any scenario that keeps him here on a LTD. We may tag him, but getting more than a one year deal seems pretty much off the table.

[Tomel]

Just to clarify some points I made earlier . . .

 

- I really like Kirk's ability and potential and believe it would be good if we could retain him on something longer than a year to year deal

 

- However, IMHO, Kirk's performance thus far doesn't justify his being one of the highest paid QBs in the league (am I wrong that a lot of his great passing stats the last couple of years resulted because the Skins were forced to pass almost every down late in games since they frequently trying to play catch up?)

 

- Also, for the various reasons mentioned, I don't believe Kirk has any intent to stay with the Skins and will depart as soon as he is able (Hmmm, with the money Kirk has made, he could follow Craven's lead and retire - his family and future heirs are set for life financially and he can avoid possible debilitating injury).

 

Here's a question. If you were going to put out top dollars for a QB and could choose any QB in the league, who would you pick ahead of Kirk? Would Kirk be your first choice?

[Koolblue13]

1 hour ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

I agree. I really can't see any scenario that keeps him here on a LTD. We may tag him, but getting more than a one year deal seems pretty much off the table.

and that amount of money just starts to hurt the entire team at that point. I really wish we could have traded him for something. We botched it not signing him after his first year as a starter, now that ship has sailed. I also see us cutting Norman and staying away from the FA a lot more, as cheap ass Bruce gets into stadium mode.

[Darrell Green Fan]

Oh Dear Lord will people stop saying he isn't good enough to be one of the highest players in the league?  The highest paid is rarely the best, they are the most recently signed.  Is anyone claiming that Stafford is better than Brady?  Carr better than Rodgers? 

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

8 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

 

We really need to stop the comparisons to guys like Brady or Rodgers or whoever at that level.  Tired of people taking a microscope to their careers to find any instance of a bad game or interception to "prove they do it too"  We already know this.  The difference is looking for trends & patterns.  It's sifting through stats to find the real DNA of a QB.  Kirk is far from one of the worst, but he is nowhere being one of the best either.  

 

It's the anti-Kirk folks that I constantly see bringing up the few great ones and making comparisons.  Brady and Rodgers are in their own world and rightfully so, but even they have shat the bed when the pressure was too much.  They are literally the only two QB's left that fit the mold of this "puts the team on their back" mantra that's become so popular.  Perhaps you'd qualify a guy like Drew Brees in this category but I think it's pretty obvious that even he's not good enough to carry a piss poor defense and no running game.  Maybe Big Ben, a guy who was transitioned into the league with an elite defense and running game.  A guy for who all the amazing plays he makes, makes just as many 'doh' type plays.  All the guys I just named have been in relatively stable situations in offenses coordinated by the same folks for the majority of their careers. 

 

Now you've got guys like Andrew Luck who can't get on the field, Russell Wilson who like Ben was also transitioned into the league with an elite defense and running game and even then still has his struggles, Matt Stafford who just got paid is 52-61 as a starter, Matt Ryan whom the fans in Atlanta were damn near ready to write off until they got Kyle S. and their running game together last season.

 

I could go on and on and on about how Brady and Rodgers are on their own planet, and everyone else is trying to figure out how to get there. 

 

 

[Fat Stupid Loser]

Just now, Darrell Green Fan said:

Oh Dear Lord will people stop saying he isn't good enough to be one of the highest players in the league?  The highest paid is rarely the best, they are the most recently signed. 

 

 

Exactly right. Stafford isn't close to the best player in the league and neither will the next contract guy be.  Unless it ends up being AR. The highest paid player in the league argument is pointless. It has nothing to do with who is the best player. Contracts in the NFL and other sports are not relative to how we do things in the real world. You can't apply our standards and thinking to it. Its a different world. Next good player up at a particular position, especially QB, will set the bar for the position. Whether he is the best at the position or not. We ought to be happy we have a guy who is good enough to be talked about as getting that kind of contract instead of hoping Kirk leaves so we can get Fitz next year for a reasonable contract. Cause you know what kind of QB you get for 14-16 million a year? You get Fitz.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

9 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

Oh Dear Lord will people stop saying he isn't good enough to be one of the highest players in the league?  The highest paid is rarely the best, they are the most recently signed.  Is anyone claiming that Stafford is better than Brady?  Carr better than Rodgers? 

Preach, but they won't hear ya though.  Rationale is not a strong point for most AntiKirks.

[OVCChairman]

I dont think its unfair to believe that it would be a bad decision to pay Kirk what market value is.  Nobody holds that against him, he earned it.  Right guy, right time, right situation.  The chips fell 100% in his favor.  'The highest paid player' is less based on merit, and all based on timing.  That said, I don't care about highest paid player, and his contract relative to others in the league.  I do care about $25 mil that could be used elsewhere to help build the team.  I also care about having the plan in place NOW in the event that Kirk does decide he does not want to sign here, which for all intents and purposes appears to be the direction we are headed.  If we can get him signed, then great, do it.... but i'm not holding my breath that it will happen, even at that $25 mil number.  I don't think any manageable offer will get him to come back... just my opinion. 

[Rufus T Firefly]

18 hours ago, pjfootballer said:

What if we traded Kirk for Goff straight up. McVay gets his Kirk back and we get a young guy Gruden can work with, who has more potential then Kirk did coming out. Just a thought.

 

For the record, the salary cap ramifications would never allow that to happen during the season. It would have to be next offseason. To do that then, you really need to place the 34 mil Franchise tag on Kirk and then do the deal. The cost of taking that 34 mil on while taking the dead cap money from trading away Goff would be tough for the Rams.

 

That aside, I think by the end of the year, we probably have a consensus that Goff is promising enough that the Rams don't want to swap him for a $34 mil 30 year old, or he's not, in which case Washington doesn't go to the trouble to take two guaranteed years of salary for Goff. Obviously, there is a chance at some middle ground, but I tend to think it's going to be a real needle thread for Goff to be just the right level of competent/promising for both teams to want to do that trade.

[Koolblue13]

1 hour ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

Oh Dear Lord will people stop saying he isn't good enough to be one of the highest players in the league?  The highest paid is rarely the best, they are the most recently signed.  Is anyone claiming that Stafford is better than Brady?  Carr better than Rodgers? 

 

 

That was my point before the season, but going into next, I think the price starts to seriously outweigh the benefit.

[UK Skins]

Sounds like Alex Smith will be available next year. No idea what sort of contract that would take but presumably he's only looking for a year or two and would let a rookie sit behind him. Thoughts?

[Skinsinparadise]

10 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

None of those QB's mentioned were in line for a contract that was likely going to make them the highest paid in the league.

 

We really need to stop the comparisons to guys like Brady or Rodgers or whoever at that level.  Tired of people taking a microscope to their careers to find any instance of a bad game or interception to "prove they do it too"  We already know this.  The difference is looking for trends & patterns.  It's sifting through stats to find the real DNA of a QB.  Kirk is far from one of the worst, but he is nowhere being one of the best either.  

 

Right now Cousins is ED-209, he does a lot of good things, but if presented with something not pre-loaded into his hard drive pre-snap he seems to struggle.

 

I disagree with some of your points here.  But I'll run with the premise that Kirk is just good (I disagree but I'll play with it for argument's sake).   Some questions to play out the logic.  

 

A.  Is the idea that with the extra money the Redskins will have (by having Colt or some cheap QB from the draft) that Bruce/Dan will go on a wild FA spree and land studs?  And even if they did and were successful at it -- they'd be one of the NFL exceptions and win without a QB?

 

B.  What is it about Bruce that makes you think he would take the extra money in FA and go on a wild FA spree?  Is that his nature? And I mean this mostly as a complement to Bruce.

 

C.  Colt McCoy.  Injury prone. In his 30s.  And is a turnover machine -- just about 1:1 INT-TD ratio.  

 

D.  For a team that's notorious for striking out (in their defense many other teams struck out, too) at QB in the draft and have done so in spectacular fashion multiple times -- why should we trust that this time they will figure it out?  For some fans that would fall under:  

 

E.  Do you think fans are comfortable riding out some more of these old school Snyder Redskins 4-12 seasons (that previously they thought were finally behind us) on the premise of just you wait this FO will figure out the QB position?  Give them time. 

 

I just don't see how you can dump Kirk without factoring the alternate scenarios.  And I think you might be overestimating the fans patience to go back on the miserable find your new QB journey.   I noticed for some here this hits the category of no big deal, lets go back on that ride again maybe we will get lucky quicker this time. And heck isn't it even a little exciting, to look?  Did you see Mayfield last week, wow!    

 

And with some its just too abstract in the moment to even worry about Plan B bombing -- we will worry about it on the fly next season when we deal with it in real time.  Right now, we are just mad at Kirk and the money he wants and that's all that matters in the moment.  Who cares about Manyana?  We will figure out Manyana when the time comes.   I just don't think the majority of fans in particular the ones who have been on this nightmare QB ride for a long time embrace going on that ride again.   I know I don't.  But to each their own. 

 

 

 

 

[OVCChairman]

Who is dumping kirk?  He's a free agent after this season... we're not cutting him, he's more then likely walking away unless we tag him for $30mil + and ride out another 1 year deal, which i'm over doing.  We need a long term QB and if Kirk isn't willing to sign a LTD, then let him leave and lets get a plan in place. 

[RandyHolt]

ED-209! Mad props to @NoCalMike

 

 

Unless we build on last season and make the playoffs, and make Kirk think he has unfinished work here, he will want to leave. So, Allen will probably tag him again, for spite, cap implications be "dan'ned".

[Skinsinparadise]

7 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

Who is dumping kirk?  He's a free agent after this season... we're not cutting him, he's more then likely walking away unless we tag him for $30mil + and ride out another 1 year deal, which i'm over doing.  We need a long term QB and if Kirk isn't willing to sign a LTD, then let him leave and lets get a plan in place. 

 

Other teams don't let the QBs they have (assuming they like them) leave in FA.  The idea that the Redskins are potentially an exception to that is partly what makes the story so sexy to both the local and national media. 

 

My most accounts of the reporters who covered this and talked to Kirk's camp if the Redskins offered him what they perceived to be a market deal.  They would have taken it -- especially if it happened early in 2017.  But they didn't.  Kirk's agent counter offered in 2016 and the Redskins turned it down -- according to multiple reports.  So yeah if Kirk goes the team has something to do with it.  If you don't like the word dumping then chose whichever term you like better "letting him go" perhaps but its irrelevant to the point I made.

[Fat Stupid Loser]

12 minutes ago, UK Skins said:

Sounds like Alex Smith will be available next year. No idea what sort of contract that would take but presumably he's only looking for a year or two and would let a rookie sit behind him. Thoughts?

You're basically getting the same player and for a shorter time frame, presumably, just based on age. As good as he is playing, he won't be cheap either. Good QBs get paid more than anyone really thinks they are worth. What are the chances of getting that rookie QB that would pan out to be good. Like 1%?

[Skinsinparadise]

14 minutes ago, Fat Stupid Loser said:

You're basically getting the same player and for a shorter time frame, presumably, just based on age. As good as he is playing, he won't be cheap either. Good QBs get paid more than anyone really thinks they are worth. What are the chances of getting that rookie QB that would pan out to be good. Like 1%?

 

This is a big part of it for me in the conversation.   We are all football junkies here.  I presume we just saw what Glennon and previously Osweiller got paid.  Alex Smith ain't coming cheap either.  He's going over 20 million.  If you want to go cheap, you need to go JAG at QB.  A Hoyer type or start from scratch in the draft.

 

I just also wonder what people think the Redskins are going to do with the extra money that they benefit from via going cheap in QB.  It seems like its a 100% accepted premise to some that we'd go ultra aggressive in FA with that extra 20 million or so and land FA hit after hit with that money.  That seems to be already baked into the argument for some.   I don't get that part. I'd put money that at least half of those savings are just sat on.  And free agency is a hit and miss endeavor and we've seen that here with every regime -- especially Bruce's run.

 

[skinny21]

18 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

That was my point before the season, but going into next, I think the price starts to seriously outweigh the benefit.

Looking at our roster (and potential needs going into next seasons), I'm wondering what effect that 25mil would have?

 

We have Pryor, Brown, Galette, Murphy, Breeland, Foster, Long, Grant, Hopkins, Compton, Taylor, Carter, Lauvao, Hall and Quick as FAs.  

 

Of those, I think Brown is in the top tier in terms of needs/wants, followed by Breeland, Galette, Pryor, Foster and Murphy in tier 2.  I'd re-sign Taylor (if he's willing) and Hopkins, but they shouldn't cost much...

 

Over the Cap has us at 58+mil in cap space for 2018 (and we may roll over our 5mil from this year), though I believe that doesn't include Thompson's extension.

 

So, how far does that ~33-38mil get us (after paying Kirk 25)?

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

8 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

Looking at our roster (and potential needs going into next seasons), I'm wondering what effect that 25mil would have?

 

We have Pryor, Brown, Galette, Murphy, Breeland, Foster, Long, Grant, Hopkins, Compton, Taylor, Carter, Lauvao, Hall and Quick as FAs.  

 

 

If Kirk is gone they'd have way more than enough and like I said in my previous post, I doubt they'd even spend all that money.  With Kirk here, they should be able to lock in who they need.  Initially I thought Pryor would take some big money.  Not sure now.  Brown looks worth the money and fortunately MLB don't get paid through the roof.   Murphy coming off an injury should be cheap.  Lauvao I'd guess is let go.  Ditto Quick.  Compton they can keep cheap as a backup.  I doubt Long is expensive.  Maybe Galette if he has a big season?   Breeland they can move on from if need be thanks to Moreau. 

[Est.1974]

30 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

My most accounts of the reporters who covered this and talked to Kirk's camp if the Redskins offered him what they perceived to be a market deal.  They would have taken it -- especially if it happened early in 2017. 

 

Yeh that's been noted quite a bit. What's interesting is that Kirk has essentially said is that he didn't feel comfortable with the whole LTD situation, he was more at ease on the one year option. 

 

Not sure how those notions fit together.

[OVCChairman]

25 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Other teams don't let the QBs they have (assuming they like them) leave in FA.  The idea that the Redskins are potentially an exception to that is partly what makes the story so sexy to both the local and national media. 

 

My most accounts of the reporters who covered this and talked to Kirk's camp if the Redskins offered him what they perceived to be a market deal.  They would have taken it -- especially if it happened early in 2017.  But they didn't.  Kirk's agent counter offered in 2016 and the Redskins turned it down -- according to multiple reports.  So yeah if Kirk goes the team has something to do with it.  If you don't like the word dumping then chose whichever term you like better "letting him go" perhaps but its irrelevant to the point I made.

Ok maybe I'm word analyzing, but what has happened, has already happened.  Was it a piss poor excuse for how to handle it?  Absolutely, and it's set this franchise back, but at this point nothing has shown us that they are willing to sign... They may have taken it before, but the most recent offer didn't even warrant a counter offer.  The team messed it up, i get that, but that can't be changed.  I'm not admonishing the fault of the franchise, just trying to look at a realistic scenario that Kirk does not want to be here anymore, and that the amount of money it would cost us to convince him, might not be the best idea for the franchise going forward, whether that be a 'market value' amount, or an even higher number for pain and suffering.