Will Cousins Play For The Skins In 2018

[CommanderDOOM]

22 minutes ago, Skins199021 said:

We need to sign him 5 years at 20-22 million per, give him 60 mil guaranteed........

I love how skins fans get so picky with the QB ....

Didn't he already turn that down??? We screwed it up when we could've had him for what he's worth. You can't try to fix the blunder overpaying by over 25%. Not when you have a system for Qbs getting guys wide open and guys like Rosen, Darnold, Mayfield, and the kid from Wyoming in the draft. Build the castle.

[Cliffmark1]

13 hours ago, bobandweave said:

I’m not voting in the poll because my thought on the matter is Kirk will leave and goto anothe team but I am not sure he actually gets signed to a LTD with the way the last two seasons have gone for him anywhere.

 

To me long term meaning for QBs are 5+ seasons and I’m not sure any teams going to sign him to that many seasons knowing how much of the owners money it will cost them.

 

I’m in the camp that it’s most likely that  the team will not use the franchise tag on him ever again. The team will transition tag him instead. Kirk probably signs for three years elsewhere and the team doesn’t match his offer and the team gets a third round compensatory pick for him in 2019.

 

 

if they lose kirk on tt i dont think they get compensatory pick

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

@bobandweave You severely underestimate the FO's and their cohesiveness with the coaching staffs in Pittsburgh and New England.  It's never just Tom and/or Ben "putting the team on their backs" or whatever the catch phrase of the year is.  Tom Brady and Ben Roethelisberger have never played a game with a supporting cast (all 3 phases, they all count) as bad as what Cousins has this season.  Never.  Ever.  

[Cliffmark1]

17 minutes ago, TheShredSkinz said:

Didn't he already turn that down??? We screwed it up when we could've had him for what he's worth. You can't try to fix the blunder overpaying by over 25%. Not when you have a system for Qbs getting guys wide open and guys like Rosen, Darnold, Mayfield, and the kid from Wyoming in the draft. Build the castle.

he was never offered 3 years guaranteed. 

[bobandweave]

Just now, Cliffmark1 said:

if they lose kirk on tt i dont think they get compensatory pick

 

I thought that based on contracts that it was a forgone conclusion that we were guaranteed to get a third round pick if he left

[Cliffmark1]

Just now, bobandweave said:

 

I thought that based on contracts that it was a forgone conclusion that we were guaranteed to get a third round pick if he left

only if redskins lose him in FA. not matching in tt is not considered iirc. 

[bobandweave]

2 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

@bobandweave You severely underestimate the FO's and their cohesiveness with the coaching staffs in Pittsburgh and New England.  It's never just Tom and/or Ben "putting the team on their backs" or whatever the catch phrase of the year is.  Tom Brady and Ben Roethelisberger have never played a game with a supporting cast (all 3 phases, they all count) as bad as what Cousins has this season.  Never.  Ever.  

 

I’m pretty sure that’s not right. The Patriots in the early 2000s won three SBs with worse receivers then we have now. They also won the SB with the 32nd ranked Defense. Not so sure about the state or those special teams but those teams were equally on par with what we have

[Skinsinparadise]

29 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

Teams like New Orleans show that signing big money QB deals when the teams not ready to support that often results in the team losing not winning. 

 

New Orleans shows that your defense giving up lots and lots of points is a big part of the soup.  All of a sudden the Saints have a defense and a running game and they are one of the best teams in the NFL.   

 

It does matter when your team gives up the most points in the NFL like the Redskins.  And I doubt some FA spending spree turns that around.  NO made strides this year in part because they drafted a stud corner and a stud running back.   The Redskins (including the defense) looked good when relatively healthy.  

 

29 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

I don’t believe based on a meaningless win over the Cardinals today which hurt the team more then it helped them long term that this group with Kirk is in a position to sign him to a LTD and find continued success with him and is actually in a better position to let him walk for continued growth as a team. 

 

The Cardinals which have the 8th ranked defense in the NFL with IMO receivers which blows ours away is a walking case in point.  You can have talent everywhere but if you have a JAG at QB you aren't going far.  This wasn't IMO one of the team's better games -- but they had a chance because Gabbert was on the other side.  If it was for example Stafford, they likely would have been smoked today.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

12 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

I’m pretty sure that’s not right. The Patriots in the early 2000s won three SBs with worse receivers then we have now. They also won the SB with the 32nd ranked Defense. Not so sure about the state or those special teams but those teams were equally on par with what we have

You are clearly seeing what you want to see.  Those teams are always, every single season all around better than the Redskins and it's not even close.  Not remotely close.  

[bobandweave]

10 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

New Orleans shows that your defense giving up lots and lots of points is a big part of the soup.  All of a sudden the Saints have a defense and a running game and they are one of the best teams in the NFL.   

 

It does matter when your team gives up the most points in the NFL like the Redskins.  And I doubt some FA spending spree turns that around.  NO made strides this year in part because they drafted a stud corner and a stud running back.   The Redskins (including the defense) looked good when relatively healthy.  

 

 

Case was made about the Saints before this season. They signed Brees to a big money deal which resulted in no playoff appearances for years. Was saying that as anything more then showing another example of a team tying itself to a big money contract when the team wasn’t ready for it. Now this season Brees numbers are terrible compared to what he used to produce and they have shifted from being a pass first team to a rushing first team. 

[bobandweave]

8 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

You are clearly seeing what you want to see.  Those teams are always, every single season all around better than the Redskins and it's not even close.  Not remotely close.  

 

Really it’s well known that the Patriots offenses haven’t always been great and they still won without it being great because they had Brady. 

 

Your not really arguing a point here other then to falsely claim that the Patriots always had great teams when they didn’t to argue with me that’s not my opinion that’s fact. Truth is the GOAT didn’t need dominate supporting casts around him to win that’s one of the reasons he is the GOAT. 

 

When he was matched up with stud offensive players he nearly went undefeated. Point is great QBs make those around them serviceable and lead them to greatness. Pretending the Patriots had great supporting casts around those super bowl teams is just nonsense

 

 

[elkabong82]

38 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

I’m pretty sure that’s not right. The Patriots in the early 2000s won three SBs with worse receivers then we have now. They also won the SB with the 32nd ranked Defense. Not so sure about the state or those special teams but those teams were equally on par with what we have

 

2001, 2003, 2004 Patriots D was 6th, 1st, and 2nd in points allowed. 2014 and 2016 they were 8th and 1st. 

[CjSuAvE22]

 

3 minutes ago, elkabong82 said:

 

2001, 2003, 2004 Patriots D was 6th, 1st, and 2nd in points allowed. 2014 and 2016 they were 8th and 1st. 

 No point in arguing with facts with people who are clueless enough to think Brady single handedly carried his team for any of his super bowl years...cousins has been stuck with bottom tier defenses no running game and this year on top of those two things had absolutely pathetic outings by his receivers. 

[CjSuAvE22]

26 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

Really it’s well known that the Patriots offenses haven’t always been great and they still won without it being great because they had Brady. 

 

Your not really arguing a point here other then to falsely claim that the Patriots always had great teams when they didn’t to argue with me that’s not my opinion that’s fact. Truth is the GOAT didn’t need dominate supporting casts around him to win that’s one of the reasons he is the GOAT. 

 

When he was matched up with stud offensive players he nearly went undefeated. Point is great QBs make those around them serviceable and lead them to greatness. Pretending the Patriots had great supporting casts around those super bowl teams is just nonsense

 

 

Go look at what his defenses did the years he won Super Bowls than compare that to any of the defenses we have had with cousins, it’s no comparison on top of that cousins has never had a running game early on Brady had Dillon gashing defenses left and right. I don’t even know why we are even comparing Brady and cousins, for the most part cousins supporters don’t want him to be with the redskins because he’s Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady but mainly because he’s a good qb whom with decent players can win games and if we ever got our defense together could def win in the playoffs I see most of the non supportive of cousins people trying to compare him with the leagues elite which simply is asinine especially since the team has nobody else on the roster to replace him.

[Cliffmark1]

32 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

Really it’s well known that the Patriots offenses haven’t always been great and they still won without it being great because they had Brady. 

 

Your not really arguing a point here other then to falsely claim that the Patriots always had great teams when they didn’t to argue with me that’s not my opinion that’s fact. Truth is the GOAT didn’t need dominate supporting casts around him to win that’s one of the reasons he is the GOAT. 

 

When he was matched up with stud offensive players he nearly went undefeated. Point is great QBs make those around them serviceable and lead them to greatness. Pretending the Patriots had great supporting casts around those super bowl teams is just nonsense

 

 

Since Kraft took over the team they have had an excellent win record.  It also proves the point ownership does affect win/loss

[Skinsinparadise]

50 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

Case was made about the Saints before this season. They signed Brees to a big money deal which resulted in no playoff appearances for years. Was saying that as anything more then showing another example of a team tying itself to a big money contract when the team wasn’t ready for it. Now this season Brees numbers are terrible compared to what he used to produce and they have shifted from being a pass first team to a rushing first team. 

 

The team wasn't ready for it?  It wasn't about them having a good draft to tip the balance?  Brees doesn't have to throw the ball a gazillion times to win.  That's a good development for their team not an indictment on Brees.  When you have a QB AND other units that are good -- the world's your oyster typically.

 

Maybe a better way to explain it is this way

 

A.  Talented team with multiple good units and a JAG at QB == typically a bad team

B.  Bad other units but with a franchise QB -- competitive team -- mediocre -- 8-8-10-6 range

C.  Franchise QB with other good units -- Superbowl threat

D.  Bad other units with a JAG at QB == a very bad team.

 

Many (not all) of the Kirk critics are arguing to chance D.  They want to see what a team with bad other units and a wildcard at QB can do.  So lets chance D and see if we defeat the odds by contradicting the principle you need to have a good QB to win or that's its hard to find a franchise QB.  The irony is unless you hit it big time in the draft and you find the next Aaron Rodgers -- if you have a hit in the draft (which isn't easy to do) you are likely back at B and it might take you 2 seasons or so to get back to that point.

 

Some Kirk critics act like theory A can be reached just like that.  Hey we don't bring back Kirk and ride with Colt -- and all of a sudden with that extra money our defense is like the Vikings defense and Seattle's roster.  The thing is though those teams didn't build a killer defense on FA sprees, much of the core players of those defensive teams were from the draft.  So yeah if we went digging in the draft again for a QB let alone trade up for one -- it will be another lost opportunity to build up those units.  Instead of adding guys like R. Jones or D. James or pick you guy -- that would be for another team to build up that unit.   We'd be fishing for a QB.  So how are we all of a sudden building up stud other units when we dedicate more draft capital at QB?

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

39 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

Really it’s well known that the Patriots offenses haven’t always been great and they still won without it being great because they had Brady. 

 

Your not really arguing a point here other then to falsely claim that the Patriots always had great teams when they didn’t to argue with me that’s not my opinion that’s fact. Truth is the GOAT didn’t need dominate supporting casts around him to win that’s one of the reasons he is the GOAT. 

 

When he was matched up with stud offensive players he nearly went undefeated. Point is great QBs make those around them serviceable and lead them to greatness. Pretending the Patriots had great supporting casts around those super bowl teams is just nonsense

 

 

Fair warning, you're about to get owned by the stat hounds.  But even then, I always kind of laugh about the "eye test" by fans, including my own.  The Pats even pass the eye test.  They constantly filter in good players and let good players go.  Tom Brady is a great quarterback with consistently good to great "teams" behind him.  That's why they win all the freaking time.

[CommanderDOOM]

Fine. We'll pay Kc more than every other qb and try to do what Rivers, Stafford, Matt Ryan, Cam, Carr,  and other good qbs failed to do while having better "teams" around them. Forget about Brees, A.Rod, and Wilson's better teams and more team friendly contracts. And not to mention the two second year guys in our own division...plus Jimmy G and Goff......they'll be sucking 20% soon too. We got this. We'll own the draft.HTTR

[veteranskinsfan]

If Cousins leaves, I will have no ill will toward him.  A lot of former Redskins have left and done well with other teams.  As a fan it would be good if he stayed but how good is this team going to be the next two years?  We really do not know.  You have to pay for a top rated quarterback. We have a lot of other holes on this team.  It is a really frustrating situation for fans to face and be honest about now.  Once they got rid of the previous General Manager, then I thought this will not end well because they did not consult with Ron Wolf, retired GM of Green Bay Packers, when he had retired and was living in Annapolis, MD.  Allen signed Williams because he knew Williams would be a team player and not make waves.  But can Williams evaluate talent and find us better players to improve the roster?  The jury is out on his GM skills until next summer when we see what new players are fighting for jobs at camp.  Cousins does not need to wait and wonder about the new GM.  He likes Gruden but is having respect for your head coach a sufficient reason to have him sign a long term deal?  Probably not.  He could not have been happy about losing two 1000 yard receivers this year and losing his favorite tight end to injury.  

[zCommander]

If you look at it objectively and take the Saints example it can work here. Pay Kirk what ever money he is entitled to from the cap space plus the guarantee for x amount of years. They you quietly keep on adding players on both side little by little and in about 3 years you can be a damn good team and one that could go all the way.

 

If anyone thinks we can get someone else next year and win a SB or go deep in the playoffs with them are totally wrong and have not been paying attention at all this year. 

 

[skins island connection]

On ‎12‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 3:09 PM, Burgold said:

Honestly, I want to sign him to a LTD or let him walk. I think a one year deal puts the team back. I mean if you can't find a deal both sides can live with three years in a row then  it's never going to happen. More, if you jam all the money into a franchise or even transition level deal this year then you screw your cap.

 

The most important question the Redskins need to answer is how far we are from really being a contender. If they think that the injuries are a fluke and this team as composed right now is an upper level playoff team then you need Kirk. If you think we're still two or three years away from being a real playoff team then maybe you go back to roulette (as painful, miserable, and likely to end in failure as that sounds).

 

Personally, I can imagine both scenarios. I can imagine this team if healthy competing easily for that wild card and maybe even the division crown. On the other hand, I can see an offense with no sure answer at wide receiver and running back as well as a great tight end who effectively took a year off and think... they have no skill players at all! If the latter is true then you need to build the team. If the former is true then why waste near elite QB play with a team that can at best max out at eight wins.

So true.

 Another 1-yr deal would be the equivalent to a slap in the face; " hey Kirk, we like you, sort of, but what have you done?" That's the kind of reply I'd expect from the inept FO.

They let his 2 best WRs walk, and they could have worked out something to at least keep 1 of them here but they didn't; see ya, hit the road, we don't need you, and attitudes like that believing the FO has the capabilities of finding quality replacements. They are clueless. So now KC has a young WR who may or may not work out, another QB-wannabe WR who definitely won't work out, and no hint of a running game or even run blocking skills on the o-line.

 

That's telling KC that HE has to carry this team, and he's not that type of QB.

 

I think he is good as gone, and you can bet the farm that once he does sign with another team, the FO, specifically Bruce Allen, will come out with a truck-load of BS and lies, saying something to the effect we offered him top 2 money and he turned it down. And to be honest, even if this were true, I wouldn't blame him for a second; he has first-hand knowledge of how the FO treats players, and he knows they will never be competitive with them running the show.

[wit33]

Or is Cousins...

 

Tommy Maddox, Kordel Stewart, Drew Bledsoe, Charlie Batch, Matt Cassel

 

I support resigning Cousins (60-40) 

[88Comrade2000]

The salary for QB market is overpriced.  There aren't really that many true franchise QBs in the NFL. Maybe just handful.   The going rate for a starting QB is 25 million/ year.  Kirk isn't going to ask for anything less. If I were him, I'd ask for 30 million/year and then go from there.  No he won't get that, but he will get close to 25 million/year.  It won't be from us.

[Veryoldschool]

18 minutes ago, wit33 said:

Or is Cousins...

 

Tommy Maddox, Kordel Stewart, Drew Bledsoe, Charlie Batch, Matt Cassel

 

I support resigning Cousins (60-40) 

 

You know these names but are not able to distinguish between them and Kirk Cousins?  I don't know what to say.

[Tsailand]

2 hours ago, elkabong82 said:

 

2001, 2003, 2004 Patriots D was 6th, 1st, and 2nd in points allowed. 2014 and 2016 they were 8th and 1st. 

 

Points allowed per game is a bad metric.for evaluating defenses.