Will Cousins Play For The Skins In 2018

[zoony]

Lets look at common demoninators in every train wreck ****storm since 1998.

 

Hint... Theres only one.

[XtremeFan55]

Today’s news.....$30 million is about the going rate for a top 10 quarterback....

 

“The current going rate for an above-average quarterback's contract extension -- let alone a guy hitting the free market -- is around $25 million per year. Andrew Luck picked up $75 million over the first three years of his new deal. Derek Carr's five-year extension is for $125 million, an average of $25 million per year. Matthew Stafford exploited his leverage to top those deals and make $29 million per year over the first three seasons of his extension with the Lions. And none of those quarterbacks is even a top-tier perennial MVP candidate.”

[bowhunter]

5 minutes ago, XtremeFan55 said:

Today’s news.....$30 million is about the going rate for a top 10 quarterback....

 

“The current going rate for an above-average quarterback's contract extension -- let alone a guy hitting the free market -- is around $25 million per year. Andrew Luck picked up $75 million over the first three years of his new deal. Derek Carr's five-year extension is for $125 million, an average of $25 million per year. Matthew Stafford exploited his leverage to top those deals and make $29 million per year over the first three seasons of his extension with the Lions. And none of those quarterbacks is even a top-tier perennial MVP candidate.”

Guarantees are where I think KC is focusing. Carr is only guaranteed $40, Luck's number is $47, Staffords mega deal is guaranteed $60.5. I would think a 4 year $25m offer with $65m guaranteed should get it done or let us know that Kirk has no real interest

[skinny21]

I would agree that that’s the general market rate, but man, teams better start realizing that the past three mega qb deals have meant very little in terms of success.  

 

The sliver of good news for the Redskins is that Kirk seems aware of that given his comments about cap % and being able to pick up FAs, etc.  

 

 

[HigSkin]

Media guys like Finley, Keim and Tandler seem to think it's gonna take some term contract with first 3 years guaranteed at $78 mil

[purbeast]

23 minutes ago, HigSkin said:

Media guys like Finley, Keim and Tandler seem to think it's gonna take some term contract with first 3 years guaranteed at $78 mil

$26m/year @ 3 years guaranteed sounds like a steal at this point.

[skinny21]

23 minutes ago, HigSkin said:

Media guys like Finley, Keim and Tandler seem to think it's gonna take some term contract with first 3 years guaranteed at $78 mil

That’s my hope.  It’s not like signing a regular FA because we know Cousins fits the team and offense, we know all about his attitude (on and off the field) and work ethic and that he takes care of his body, so the guaranteed money should be far less of a risk.  

[Thirtyfive2seven]

On 12/10/2017 at 8:29 PM, Veryoldschool said:

The 2012 epic screw-up is still hurting this club, pissing away 4 high picks that a smart owner could have used to build an epic OL or DL still hurts this club and will hurt the club for more years to come.  An utterly ridiculous trade with a decade-long impact and Synder is going to exponentially compound his idiocy losing by Cousins. 

It's the offseason so I'm going to run with this thought because ... there isn't much else to do.  Can you imagine if Shanahan were allowed to pass on RGIII and got a franchise QB in the 4th round?  Even with the salary cap penalty that came down from no where and screwed the team even further than pissing away the draft picks did the Redskins may have been in a pretty good position.  Could have selected a true NT, perhaps more linemen or leveraged the pick to trade back and get more selections.  What everyone here is suggesting, I think, is to take that change ALL OVER AGAIN.  They want risk a really high draft pick on a QB coming out of college with all the potential that RGIII had knowing full well that it could be a complete and total bust.  I just don't get that.  You have a 4th rd pick who is going to start and win at least 7-10 games for any franchise next year if he goes elsewhere.  I firmly believe that because Kirk won 7 games this year with a patch work offensive line, hardly any WR's, his top TE injured most of the year, and a stable of mediocre (at best) RB's.  Not to mention the problems on the other side of the ball.  Imagine Cousins on a team with stability.  IMO, it's scary what he can accomplish.  So now there is a trade off.  Do you believe that Bruce Allen and Doug Williams are capable of building a team around Kirk?  From what i saw last year after Scot was fired and the previous 20 under Snyder I think the answer is no way.  But that said, this team is actually REALLY close to be a very good team for years to come if you retain Kirk.  The coaching staff did a pretty good job given all of the injuries.  The play calling was crappy at times but Jay could improve.  The defense was awful on 3rd downs again but that could change.  The Redskins could have a season where they don't play with 40 different offensive line combinations and draft a good RB.  Remember Kirk is pretty good with a running game and using play action.  The defense could actually get off the field on 3rd downs or not blow 14 pt leads with 3 minutes left in a game.  Just a little luck and the Redskins would have been a 9-10 win team.  That would have been incredible given their situation.  

 

[HigSkin]

9 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

That’s my hope.  It’s not like signing a regular FA because we know Cousins fits the team and offense, we know all about his attitude (on and off the field) and work ethic and that he takes care of his body, so the guaranteed money should be far less of a risk.  

Yup, but I will say if KC doesn't accept something 5-6 yrs pushing $140 mil I'll be done with him...lol

[clskinsfan]

15 minutes ago, purbeast said:

$26m/year @ 3 years guaranteed sounds like a steal at this point.

I dont know how anyone can consider paying ANY player 78 million guaranteed in 3 years a steal? IF that would get it done than it is what we need to do. But it is not a steal by any measure.

[purbeast]

7 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

I dont know how anyone can consider paying ANY player 78 million guaranteed in 3 years a steal? IF that would get it done than it is what we need to do. But it is not a steal by any measure.

Compared to the numbers that have been thrown out there, that is a steal IMO.

[skinny21]

2 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

I dont know how anyone can consider paying ANY player 78 million guaranteed in 3 years a steal? IF that would get it done than it is what we need to do. But it is not a steal by any measure.

The guaranteed portion would be the opposite of a steal, you’re right.  Getting Cousins for several mil under market value would be a steal though, right?  Always the chance of course that Kirk shops around and 24mil annually is the best he’s offered... in which case the market is depressed and 26mil is no longer a steal.  

 

Bottom line though, a lesser annual salary with increased guarantees would be a good thing for the team.  As I said, I think Kirk understands the cap limitations in terms of improving the team (his comments about cap % and guaranteed contracts in other sports).  

 

As I’ve said before, if we offer excellent guarantees to go with the stability of sticking with the team/offense he knows, I could see him taking a lesser salary than he’d get elsewhere.  

[Thirtyfive2seven]

So after all of this speculation.. Has there been ANY news regarding contract talks?  When can we expect to hear something on that front? Will it be after the super bowl?

[Peregrine]

17 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

I dont know how anyone can consider paying ANY player 78 million guaranteed in 3 years a steal? IF that would get it done than it is what we need to do. But it is not a steal by any measure.

Im curious, what is the actual difference between guaranteeing someone 78 million and then paying them it, and guaranteeing someone 50 million and paying  them 78 million?

[purbeast]

1 minute ago, Thirtyfive2seven said:

So after all of this speculation.. Has there been ANY news regarding contract talks?  When can we expect to hear something on that front? Will it be after the super bowl?

I mean nobody knows.  It's all speculation at this point.  According to Cousins himself though, it will be in March when we'd hear anything, if at all.  

 

Hopefully the Redskins are working their asses off right now trying to present something to him.  It would be awesome to just hear some random news this week or next week about an LTD being signed.

[clskinsfan]

8 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

Im curious, what is the actual difference between guaranteeing someone 78 million and then paying them it, and guaranteeing someone 50 million and paying  them 78 million?

Injury thats the difference. If he suffers a career ender the team is out 28 million of cap space and their starting QB. It is a HUGE difference.

[Paul Cumberland]

1 hour ago, HigSkin said:

Media guys like Finley, Keim and Tandler seem to think it's gonna take some term contract with first 3 years guaranteed at $78 mil

 

51 minutes ago, purbeast said:

$26m/year @ 3 years guaranteed sounds like a steal at this point.

 

33 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

I dont know how anyone can consider paying ANY player 78 million guaranteed in 3 years a steal? IF that would get it done than it is what we need to do. But it is not a steal by any measure.

 

Stuck in the middle of an ESPN article on the hiring of Jon Gruden was this nifty little paragraph.  Found it apropos to the discussion of the cost.

 

The current going rate for an above-average quarterback's contract extension -- let alone a guy hitting the free market -- is around $25 million per year. Andrew Luck picked up $75 million over the first three years of his new deal. Derek Carr's five-year extension is for $125 million. Matthew Stafford exploited his leverage to top those deals and make $29 million per year over the first three seasons of his extension with the Lions. And none of those quarterbacks is even a top-tier perennial MVP candidate.

[Inigo Montoya]

Why don't we make waves and offer the first ever fully guaranteed contract? Make it a smaller annual number but completely guarantee it? 

 

$110 Million 5 years, totally guaranteed. If he signs a contract here, we are making a commitment to continue to build around him. 3 years, 5 years? what does it matter, he's proven to be healthy and won't be satisfied just because he got a contract. We'd make waves with being the first to do it (IMO in a good way). 

[SemperFi Skins]

4 minutes ago, Inigo Montoya said:

Why don't we make waves and offer the first ever fully guaranteed contract? Make it a smaller annual number but completely guarantee it? 

 

$110 Million 5 years, totally guaranteed. If he signs a contract here, we are making a commitment to continue to build around him. 3 years, 5 years? what does it matter, he's proven to be healthy and won't be satisfied just because he got a contract. We'd make waves with being the first to do it (IMO in a good way). 

 

Because, Redskins.... You'd also be guaranteeing that he gets injured Week 1 and he lives out the contract from the comfort of his couch and Redskins are in cap hell for 5 years...

[mistertim]

2 hours ago, HigSkin said:

Media guys like Finley, Keim and Tandler seem to think it's gonna take some term contract with first 3 years guaranteed at $78 mil

 

That's an insane amount of fully guaranteed money, especially for a 3 year contract. Insane. Matt Stafford's blockbuster deal included a record $60.5 million fully guaranteed, and that was a 5 year deal. Luck's was $47 million fully guaranteed and that was a 6 year deal. So that means (if that number is correct) Kirk wants literally 18 million more fully guaranteed than the next highest guaranteed player for on a 2 year shorter contract. I don't see anyone willing to pay that amount for him, Skins or other teams. 

 

I actually think other teams would balk at that even more than the Skins. They have no idea how he'll do in their system or with their personnel. That huge amount guaranteed means that if he goes there and sucks, oh well, they're still in the toilet for a ton of money even if they want to cut him.

[Paul Cumberland]

20 minutes ago, mistertim said:

Matt Stafford's blockbuster deal included a record $60.5 million fully guaranteed, and that was a 5 year deal

 

Actually, Stafford's deal includes 92m in guarantees of which 60.5m was the signing bonus.

 

Per OverTheCap.com:

 

Matt Stafford signed a five year, $135 million contract extension with the Detroit Lions on August 29, 2017. These contract details come from a report by Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk.  Stafford received $92 million guaranteed, $60.5 million of which is fully guaranteed at signing. The guarantee includes a $50 million signing bonus and his 2017 and 2018 base salaried. If Stafford is on the Lions roster on the 3rd day of the 2018 league year a $6.5 million 2018 roster bonus,  $5.5 million 2019 roster bonus and his 2019 base salary will all become fully guaranteed. If on the roster the 3rd day of the 2019 league year a $6 million roster bonus due in 2020 will become fully guaranteed. There are also annual workout bonuses of $500,000.

[HigSkin]

30 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

That's an insane amount of fully guaranteed money, especially for a 3 year contract. Insane.

 

Structured so the contract has the first 3 years ($26 per year) guaranteed for how ever many years they want to make it.  Could be 5-6 for example with more money each of those added years, not necessarily guaranteed in those added years.

 

Some team is gonna offer that if not the Skins...

[skinny21]

23 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

That's an insane amount of fully guaranteed money, especially for a 3 year contract. Insane. Matt Stafford's blockbuster deal included a record $60.5 million fully guaranteed, and that was a 5 year deal. Luck's was $47 million fully guaranteed and that was a 6 year deal. So that means (if that number is correct) Kirk wants literally 18 million more fully guaranteed than the next highest guaranteed player for on a 2 year shorter contract. I don't see anyone willing to pay that amount for him, Skins or other teams. 

 

I actually think other teams would balk at that even more than the Skins. They have no idea how he'll do in their system or with their personnel. That huge amount guaranteed means that if he goes there and sucks, oh well, they're still in the toilet for a ton of money even if they want to cut him.

I think you, maybe accidentally, hit the key part... another team is less likely to make that kind of offer, whereas we know certain teams can (and likely will?) outbid us on the annual average.  If we did that, but shaved off a couple-several mil off the annual salary (from what other teams might offer), it's a win, win for us.  We keep our franchise qb and save enough money to be slightly more active in FA.  

[Skinsinparadise]

 

Lack of succession planning has left the Redskins in a bad place at quarterback

 

...Last year, Cousins again was on the tag and McCoy was still under contract. They obviously were not highly impressed with what they had seen out of Sudfeld in practice the previous year as they cut him at the end of camp. They had 10 picks in the draft and they did not take a quarterback.

 

After they let Sudfeld go he immediately signed with the Eagles practice squad. The Redskins did not pick up a third quarterback—perhaps a guy like Case Keenum, who was cheap and available during March—to develop on the 53-man roster. They sort of made an effort to have a third QB on the practice squad. They had Alek Torgersen out of Penn on the practice squad for the first month of the season. After they let him go they signed Joel Stave from Wisconsin, who had been with three teams as an undrafted rookie in 2016. Stave was released two weeks after signing.

 

For the last 10 weeks of the season, the Redskins opted not to have a young quarterback in the meeting room, helping with the scout team, and soaking up as much knowledge about the NFL in general and about the Redskins offense in particular.

 

All of this lack of any succession planning at quarterback has left the Redskins in an unenviable spot. If Cousins leaves, the only quarterback with experience in Gruden’s offense is McCoy. He has played in just two games in the past three years, both times in mop-up work. They signed former Miami Hurricanes QB Stephen Morris to a futures contract but he has had only brief stints on the 53-man rosters of three different teams in four years. Per CBA rules, he won’t be able to get any teaching about the offense until the offseason program starts in mid-April.

 

In short, despite having a shaky situation at the most important position on the field, the Redskins have gone through three drafts and three free agent signing periods without adding anything remotely resembling insurance at quarterback. That may force them to use the franchise tag and pay a lot more than they want to in order to keep Cousins around.

 

Or they will have to start over with only McCoy on the roster. He can be effective in short stretches but he carries legitimate questions about his durability.

 

This is what you get when you kick the can down the road as the Redskins have. You either end up with bad choices or the cost of keeping the status quo skyrockets.

 

http://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/lack-succession-planning-has-left-redskins-bad-place-quarterback?utm_content=buffer232d2&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[KDawg]

Slightly off the current topic, but on topic:

 

I see some here (this isn’t a slight, for the record) that get frustrated when people try to look at Cousins in a Vacuum. It’s a team game is a common retort. Absolutely correct. But it seems as if a lot of the same people who get frustrated with those who try to view this whole “is he worth it” situation in a Vacuum then want to do the same thing with his contract. 

 

“He’s worth whatever they need to pay him. He’s the best QB the team has had in a long, long time.”

 

Absolutely. But where’s that gotten the Skins as a franchise? And that’s not to say that Kirk can’t guide the team forward and onto bigger and better things, but it is to say that the team hasn’t seen the kind of success you’d hope for given the cap % that he is allegedly looking at. 

 

Thats where a lot of the “Cousins is the best we’ve had” crowd is missing. 

 

But the other side is missing something, too. If we let Cousins walk and go with someone else, will the money saved help the team sign someone to fill the gap and improve another position with at least one quality player each season? If not, what’s the point in moving on? 

 

This is where there is a disconnect.

 

Most seem to be on one side or the other of this issue. And it is a polarizing issue and both sides bring some good points to the table...

 

But the honest answer is: “It depends”. At least in my opinion. You can’t look at anything in a Vacuum. You need to understand needs, what’s available, have a roadmap for multiple scenarios and several different plans.

 

I can’t tell you if the Skins should sign Kirk or not. I don’t know. There are too many variables that we as fans aren’t privy to.

 

Heres what I can say:

 

Cousins is a healthy quarterback who takes care of himself and has moments of brilliance. There are times he’s capable of putting the team on his back and winning a game and there are times he’s capable of costing the team the game. He’s consistently inconsistent in big moments, but relatively steady as a whole. He’s the best QB this franchise has seen in a long time. 

 

I have no idea how to proceed in regards to building the REDSKINS as a team as it pertains to Cousins. Just tooo many variables.