Will Cousins Play For The Skins In 2018

[Bang]

6 hours ago, Gibbit said:

griffin wasn't a qb, hes a track star

 

Like the guy said Kirk blossomed in the system, because he sure as hell didn't come on like a freight train......more like a timid flower. At least he stunk in his last game as a skin....so I can remember him with a smile

..I'm just prepping though

 

Or he came on like a 4th round draft pick who developed after sitting for a couple years while the team turned somersaults around him.. while simultaneous with his opportunity the team built itself and installed a new head coach and his schemes.

I know it sounds like a recipe for instant success... but maybe it's as expected to this point.

 

Bird in hand.  Let this team stay healthy for once and I'd love to see what can happen.

 

~Bang

 

[Tarpon75]

15 hours ago, beachboy757 said:

How can people say the Browns, Broncos, and Jags are all SB contenders with Kirk while the Redskins would remain average? That is very much a personal opinion because the Browns and Broncos are NOT SB teams. The Broncos have lost good players in FA since the SB win and have been going backward since and the Browns are 1-32 over the past two seasons.  I am absolutely mind blown at the amount of praise and envy our fans have for Browns. I just don't get it!

 

The Jags could be nice with Kirk but lets see how they do when the AFCS is more healthy, more competitive, and when they have to face teams like Chiefs or Patriots in the regular season vs the bottom feeders of the AFC before we are handing then SB championships.

 

The Skins need Cousins, a RB and a way to stop the run and they could compete with any team. 

They pretty much did compete with any team they played this year until  injuries decimated the roster.I think back to the Oakland game and see one of the best Redskins efforts I have seen in a long time. Just makes me think they could have easily been a nine or 10 win team with just a few less key injuries.

[c slag]

57 minutes ago, Tarpon75 said:

They pretty much did compete with any team they played this year until  injuries decimated the roster.I think back to the Oakland game and see one of the best Redskins efforts I have seen in a long time. Just makes me think they could have easily been a nine or 10 win team with just a few less key injuries.

If they would have stayed healthy and collected 10 wins may not have been the Redskins in the super bowl but probably wouldn't be even talking about the Eagles 

[skinny21]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I think if they’re not careful the defense has a chance to step backwards with the defections of possibly Zach Brown and Bree.  I know they have DB depth, so maybe that’s not a huge issue, but it remains to be seen.  Getting Foster back is great, but if they let Brown go and don’t replace him with a really athletic ILB, that’s a problem.  

I think this is a great point - losing Breeland (probably Galette?) and especially Brown could have a serious impact.  On the other hand, they get back Allen, Foster and Nicholson, add draft picks, and maybe return Murphy.  Plus they should see some growth from young guys and maybe even from our FAs from last year.  If we land a capable NT in the draft, I would be optimistic that they offset much of what Brown brings.  

Quote

 

On offense, they have to upgrade the skill position players.  Period.  They need more than CT coming off of a broken leg as a weapon. 

 

I dont think you you can count on Reed.  I advocated just moving on from him entirely, but if you’re not going to do that, then you need to address TE anyway because his track record shows he won’t be available.  

 

They need a starting RB.  It was concerning to hear Gruden say he hopes the starter is already on the team.  

Agree with the above.  The good news is that adding a talented back shouldn’t be a problem.  I just hope they do it.  Have to imagine we improve our offensive weapons (at least marginally) with slightly better luck health-wise and through the draft/UDFA.  Getting the oline healthy should help.  

Quote

 

They need a starting #1 WR.  They also need a #2 WR.  It was concerning to hear Gruden say “we will do everything we can to bring [Grant]back” in answer to the “who’s the starter across from Doctson” question.

 

They don’t look like they want to make serious changes. 

I sure hope he brought up Grant just because he’s the obvious one to bring back because of his versatility, rather than thinking his return is enough.  The question is what resources can we really devote to upgrading this issue.  

Quote

 

After evaluating the entire coaching staff (which I don’t think actually happened) there are zero changes.

 

So I don’t know whether they will be worse.  But I don’t think they’re going to be a lot better.  Unless they are honest with themselves and really upgrade the roster.

 

 

Personally, I’m ok without coaching changes.  Would have liked to see an OC added, but I’m pretty happy with this group overall.  

 

I think this draft is set up well to address some of our big problems - stopping the run and the run game - by adding a NT/DT, a back and a TE and/or G.  Not totally confident that 1) the FO sees things the same and 2) they follow through, but I’ve been relatively happy with their drafting recently and FA moves.  We’ll see.  

 

Hate to keep harping on injuries, but I was impressed at times with their competitiveness considering the health issues.  Get those guys back, land a couple or few starters and perhaps add a bit of depth, and I think we’ve got a good shot at legitimate, maybe even significant improvement... even with a big(ger) qb salary.  Again, we will see.  

[HigSkin]

I'm still confused about what Tandler wrote about using a Transition Tag.  Hypothetically, if we're telling KC/agent to go find a trading partner and some team comes back with an offer that we either can't match or won't match?  Don't we lose that ability to sign and trade or do we threaten to match forcing a trade?

[Paul Cumberland]

23 minutes ago, HigSkin said:

I'm still confused about what Tandler wrote about using a Transition Tag.  Hypothetically, if we're telling KC/agent to go find a trading partner and some team comes back with an offer that we either can't match or won't match?  Don't we lose that ability to sign and trade or do we threaten to match forcing a trade?

 

To even start the process of obtaining a trade, we would need to own Kirk's rights.  To own Kirk's rights, he has to be on a contract with us of some kind.  In terms of a tag, he'd have to sign one of them prior to providing him permission to seek a trade.  All of this would be done in step 1.  If after his agent talks with other teams and no trading partner is found, he plays for us on another 1-year rental.  But remember, there's always the possibility if no trade is found, they could still come away with a LTD with him where the tag gets ripped up.  It's all very risky..

[skinny21]

Took a look at career qb numbers - gotta say, outside of knowing he's had a high completion percentage (tied for 3rd all time with Warner), I had no idea Kirk ranked so high.  

 

Passer rating - tied with Warner for 10th

YPA - tied at 14th with guys like Fouts, Staubach and Peyton

INT % - tied at 22 with guys like Rivers, Luck, Montana and Young

TD % - tied at 57th with (strangely) 3 Bengals - Palmer, Esiason and Dalton, just ahead of Eli, Ryan, Carr, Namath and Newton

 

[HigSkin]

34 minutes ago, Paul Cumberland said:

 

To even start the process of obtaining a trade, we would need to own Kirk's rights.  To own Kirk's rights, he has to be on a contract with us of some kind.  In terms of a tag, he'd have to sign one of them prior to providing him permission to seek a trade.  All of this would be done in step 1.  If after his agent talks with other teams and no trading partner is found, he plays for us on another 1-year rental.  But remember, there's always the possibility if no trade is found, they could still come away with a LTD with him where the tag gets ripped up.  It's all very risky..

 

The signing thing Tandler talks about here is what is confusing.  He is saying you put a tag on him but he wouldn't sign it until a deal is worked out.

 

http://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/need-know-can-redskins-tag-and-trade-cousins?utm_content=buffer1f5bd&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

If the Redskins want to try to tag and trade Cousins, the transition tag would be a much better vehicle to use. The practical effect would be the same and the Redskins would not have as much cap space tied up during the process.

There doesn’t really need to be any winking and nodding involved; the Redskins can give Cousins’ agent permission to talk to any or all teams at any time. Here is my understanding of how it could work out after the Redskins put the tag on him. 1) Cousins works out a deal with, say, Denver. No offer sheet is signed. 2) Cousins goes back to the Redskins, signs the tag, and the teams execute a trade that was agreed to beforehand. 3) Cousins signs the new deal with the Broncos.

[Paul Cumberland]

1 minute ago, HigSkin said:

1) Cousins works out a deal with, say, Denver. No offer sheet is signed. 2) Cousins goes back to the Redskins, signs the tag, and the teams execute a trade that was agreed to beforehand. 3) Cousins signs the new deal with the Broncos.

 

Not saying he's wrong but the league may have an issue with that if it were to come to light as legally, the only time a prospective FA is allowed to talk with other teams is 2 days before FA begins.  But to play along, I suppose there'd have to be some kind of handshake agreement to execute something like that, in which case, you're original comment could well play out where the other team just front-loads a contract where we wouldn't be able to match.

[LightningBuggs]

The Broncos are officially open for business.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/01/28/john-elway-we-have-the-draft-ammo-to-make-a-trade/

[markmills67]

8 minutes ago, LightningBuggs said:

The Broncos are officially open for business.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/01/28/john-elway-we-have-the-draft-ammo-to-make-a-trade/

There 1st round pick would do very nicely ?

 

HTTR 

[Skinsinparadise]

5 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I think if they’re not careful the defense has a chance to step backwards with the defections of possibly Zach Brown and Bree.  I know they have DB depth, so maybe that’s not a huge issue, but it remains to be seen.  Getting Foster back is great, but if they let Brown go and don’t replace him with a really athletic ILB, that’s a problem.  

 

 

Judging by the insiders on 106.7 talking today -- odds are good that both Zach and Kirk are gone.    If so it's going to be one heck of a wild FA season I gather.

[mistertim]

23 minutes ago, LightningBuggs said:

The Broncos are officially open for business.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/01/28/john-elway-we-have-the-draft-ammo-to-make-a-trade/

 

Wonder if they're thinking Alex Smith instead of Kirk. In a trade, they'd have to figure that the Skins would probably want their #5 overall for Kirk. Smith would probably cost a 2nd rounder I'd guess. Then add in that Smith's contract, while decent, wouldn't be "highest in NFL history" level. Then add in that the Broncos probably know that their window is closing within the next couple of years for being able to win a SB with their current top defense and cap situation so they'll have to start thinking rebuild at that point. Maybe they decide to go with Smith for a 3 year contract, try to win the big one while they still have a top defense, and then rebuild.

 

I hope I'm wrong though, because I'd love to get Denver's #5 overall (this is all assuming Kirk is leaving, which I think is very likely the case).

[Est.1974]

No chance on Elway settling for Smith if he can get hold of Cousins. 

[bobandweave]

2 hours ago, HigSkin said:

 

The signing thing Tandler talks about here is what is confusing.  He is saying you put a tag on him but he wouldn't sign it until a deal is worked out.

 

http://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/need-know-can-redskins-tag-and-trade-cousins?utm_content=buffer1f5bd&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

If the Redskins want to try to tag and trade Cousins, the transition tag would be a much better vehicle to use. The practical effect would be the same and the Redskins would not have as much cap space tied up during the process.

There doesn’t really need to be any winking and nodding involved; the Redskins can give Cousins’ agent permission to talk to any or all teams at any time. Here is my understanding of how it could work out after the Redskins put the tag on him. 1) Cousins works out a deal with, say, Denver. No offer sheet is signed. 2) Cousins goes back to the Redskins, signs the tag, and the teams execute a trade that was agreed to beforehand. 3) Cousins signs the new deal with the Broncos.

 

The point of RTs posting is that some teams like the Broncos could not front load a contract due to their own cap issues. He’s inferring that Kirk would be reluctant to sign a team friendly deal that might be matched by the Redskins. So he’s giving a hypothetical on how a tag and trade could work out where Kirk leaves, the team gets some compensation, and his new team doesn’t screw up its cap adding him.

 

Truth is year after year the easiest way for beat reporters to get a good look at who may go where in the offseason is at the combine and senior bowl. Player agents attend these events and let the teams know what the players contract demands may be so that the market can be set for that player. 

 

Unlike what was posted this is a grey area of league rules and not anything that would be penalized by the league for people speaking about contracts and such by the league. This is normal business for the NFL so much so that they now have an official public three day tampering window for free agents but no one actually believes that tampering doesn’t occur regardless.

 

RT was asked how the team could trade Kirk and this is a very plausible way it can be done. The problem with it is that the what if the Redskins try and swerve Kirk into thinking he would be traded only to not trade and keep him which would be unprecedented and highly unlikely. 

5 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

No chance on Elway settling for Smith if he can get hold of Cousins. 

 

No chance that the Chiefs trade the 33 year old Smith to a devision rival unless they get an offer which they can’t refuse (multiple firsts) so Elways not saying that to get Smith. It’s a message to Kirk’s agents and the Redskins

[Skinsinparadise]

Again, I'll preface that I don't want to trade Kirk.  But that by far is the better option than losing him for nothing.  To me a late third rounder in 2019 is a ham sandwich.  It's close enough to losing him for nothing.

 

I was just checking out twitter and reading the papers of some of the teams that are supposedly interested in Kirk.  None of them mention a trade for Kirk.  They seem to think they get Kirk and keep their draft picks -- have their cake and eat it, too.  Heck I read an article from a Denver reporter that alluded to them signing Kirk AND the Redskins among other teams might be interested in trading up for the #5 pick to then get a QB. So Denver can get Kirk and a bounty of picks too maybe even from the Redskins.   Nauseating to me.   

 

At the same time, the Eagles who have historically fleeced the league in obtaining draft picks for their unwanted QBs -- get a mention on Sirrius when I tuned in about talk about maybe they can get a first rounder for Nick Foles. 

[bobandweave]

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

 

Wonder if they're thinking Alex Smith instead of Kirk. In a trade, they'd have to figure that the Skins would probably want their #5 overall for Kirk.

 

The Redskins would never get the 5th overall pick for Cousins without adding to the Broncos haul.

 

Last season they turned down I believe the 49ers 2, 3, and 4th round picks for Kirk. Which would lead one to think that a first is necessary except the league would know that Kirk’s on borrowed time so can’t see that type of compensation given by Denver for him.(wrong corrected below)

 

I can see the Broncos trading first round picks with the Redskins and giving a third round pick on top for him. Moving down 8 spots in the first and giving a third when they have one coming back to them in compensatory picks seems like a good deal for Denver and decent for the Redskins.

 

The Redskins could then trade a third for Alex Smith having two of them and answer the question of who is QBing them next season. No lost picks for the Redskins for Smith, a move up in the first round with an option to trade down and get more picks or a franchise QB sounds reasonable for the Redskins.

 

Chiefs end up with an additional third round pick, lose Alex Smith, and gain 17 million in cap space

 

Bronocs stay in the first round, get Kirk and only lose a third round pick

 

Redskins lose Kirk, move up in the first round, get Alex Smith, and add 11 million in cap space

 

I know far fetched but would be a good deal for everyone as everyone gets something valuable in the trade.

 

Now if the Chiefs demand a second round pick for Smith might have to get more from Denver to do that trade but same framework applies....

 

Chiefs lose Alex Smith, gain a second round pick, and gain 17 million in cap space

 

Broncos trade down from 5 to 13 in the first, get Kirk Cousins, and lose its second round pick

 

Redskins lose Kirk Cousins, gain Alex Smith, move from 13 to 5 in the first round, and gain 11 million in cap space

 

Three team trades rarely happen but this I could see. Would rather do this for the third round pick but eh it’s better then getting nothing.

 

It puts the Redskins in a great spot to land a franchise QB in the draft or to add more picks by sliding down. And gives them a solid veteran QB to play in 2018. The Chiefs get rid of Smith helps it’s cap situation out greatly, and gains a second round pick. Denver wins the cha cha cha and only loses its second round pick. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Where did this turning down a 2nd, 3rd and 4th from the 49ers come from?

 

That's the first time I've heard that.

[mistertim]

42 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

No chance on Elway settling for Smith if he can get hold of Cousins. 

 

You're assuming that Elway thinks Cousins is worth it or is even all that great. We have no way of knowing. For all we know he might look at the two QBs and think he could win equally well either, or maybe even more with Smith. If a team is relying a bunch on an elite defense they mostly just need a QB who will be efficient, not make many mistakes, and make plays when needed. Smith fits that bill and would cost significantly less than Cousins. I know some people get tired of hearing about the whole thing, but if you think an all time great QB like Elway hasn't noticed or at least wouldn't consider the issue of Kirk playing very poorly in some really important must win games then I have a bridge you might be interested in.

[bobandweave]

15 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Where did this turning down a 2nd, 3rd and 4th from the 49ers come from?

 

That's the first time I've heard that.

 

Got my trades confused. The 49ers offered that for the first round pick

 

http://www.nbcsports.com/washington/washington-redskins/redskins-turned-down-draft-day-trade-49ers

 

There was a lot of talk about trading Kirk last draft but no teams were mentioned and all talks were immediately shot down

 

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2017/03/browns_not_expected_to_make_a.html

[bobandweave]

4 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

You're assuming that Elway thinks Cousins is worth it or is even all that great. We have no way of knowing. For all we know he might look at the two QBs and think he could win equally well either, or maybe even more with Smith. If a team is relying a bunch on an elite defense they mostly just need a QB who will be efficient, not make many mistakes, and make plays when needed. Smith fits that bill and would cost significantly less than Cousins. I know some people get tired of hearing about the whole thing, but if you think an all time great QB like Elway hasn't noticed or at least wouldn't consider the issue of Kirk playing very poorly in some really important must win games then I have a bridge you might be interested in.

 

No reason to offer the bridge to me unless you want me to take a picture of you taking a short walk off it.

 

As much as your trying to push the idea that the Broncos aren’t into Kirk and really is into Smith there are several problems with that

 

1. You mention Kirk’s big game record, Alex has a longer and worse record in those. They are both worts on these guys shared equally

 

2. You actually think a QB in an NFL division is going to be traded to another team in that division who is not washed up? It’s one thing to trade a player long in decline like McNabb and something else completely when discussing a 33 year old who just had the best passer rating in the league. The only way a trade like that happens is a massive over pay and it’s not as likely as trading for Kirk because while the money maybe more for Kirk the draft compensation would be less then for Kirk

 

3. Reports are not pointing out that Elway likes Smith more then Kirk. In fact the opposite is being said

 

https://www.milehighreport.com/2018/1/26/16937660/report-it-seems-its-more-likely-than-not-that-kirk-plays-for-the-broncos-next-year

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mistertim]

4 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

No reason to offer the bridge to me unless you want me to take a picture of you taking a short walk off it.

 

As much as your trying to push the idea that the Broncos aren’t into Kirk and really is into Smith there are several problems with that

 

1. You mention Kirk’s big game record, Alex has a longer and worse record in those. They are both worts on these guys shared equally

 

2. You actually think a QB in an NFL division is going to be traded to another team in that division who is not washed up? It’s one thing to trade a player long in decline like McNabb and something else completely when discussing a 33 year old who just had the best passer rating in the league. The only way a trade like that happens is a massive over pay and it’s not as likely as trading for Kirk because while the money maybe more for Kirk the draft compensation would be less then for Kirk

 

3. Reports are not pointing out that Elway likes Smith more then Kirk. In fact the opposite is being said

 

https://www.milehighreport.com/2018/1/26/16937660/report-it-seems-its-more-likely-than-not-that-kirk-plays-for-the-broncos-next-year

 

 

Again, my point was that we have no clue what Elway actually thinks. This time of year there are always reports of this team likes this person in the draft or FA and historically it is about 50-50 whether they're correct. Elway's quotes said nothing about Smith or Cousins and were completely noncommittal. He said there's more unknowns in the draft than in FA (duh) but then also said that since they're picking at 5 they know a bit more about what they'd do. He also talked about getting "bang for the buck" when it comes to cap space. For all we know "bang for the buck" does not equal making Kirk the highest paid NFL player in history to him, especially when they have such a tight cap situation. 

 

As far as Smith, I know he's had bad big games as well and I think the division rival thing is valid. But it goes back to "bang for the buck". IF they somehow were to get Smith for a reasonable draft pick price then I could see them potentially seeing him as more bang for the buck with a top defense. But if the Chiefs really don't want to trade Smith to a division rival no matter what (unless they drastically overpay) then it is moot. Then you have to look at the draft and then it is up to Elway whether he thinks a talented rookie at 5 is worth it and is more "bang for the buck" than paying a metric ****ton for Kirk.

 

We really just won't know until it actually happens.

[Est.1974]

36 minutes ago, mistertim said:

You're assuming that Elway thinks Cousins is worth it or is even all that great. We have no way of knowing.

 

Of course I'm assuming that. Neither of us have any way of knowing, either way.

 

My view is Kirk to Elway and the Broncos is the most likely outcome. It simply makes perfect sense with an unbiased opinion. Doesn't mean it will happen, I know.

13 minutes ago, mistertim said:

Elway whether he thinks a talented rookie at 5

 

Elway tried to draft his QB and it failed. I don't think he'll fancy that road again. 

[bobandweave]

14 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

We really just won't know until it actually happens.

 

Valid point. During this time of year it’s all speculation and that’s all I’m doing as I sit here watching this rainy probowl. No one knows we just are fans talking speculation and it will all be revealed soon. Hail brother

[mistertim]

4 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

Elway tried to draft his QB and it failed. I don't think he'll fancy that road again. 

 

And that's a fair point. However, I don't think that would necessarily stop him from drafting another QB if he thought enough of the guy. Every team fails at some point in drafting a QB, that doesn't mean they won't try again. 

 

Drafting a QB at 5 is also much different than drafting one at 26. He'll most likely have his pick of one of the top couple of prospects. Then again, maybe he's unimpressed with this QB class in general. That's also a complete possibility, in which case he'll probably go hard in FA. 

 

One way or the other it will likely be a pretty wild offseason.