clskinsfan Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Just now, Gibbsisgod2006 said: I didn't think that you could use the tag after 3 years? Nope. You can keep tagging them at 144% of the previous years salary. Lets say the Skins had decided to tag Kirk the next 3 years. His salaries would have been 34 mill, 49 mill then 70 mill. So you can see why 3 years is really the limit that any team would use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters20 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Just now, Gibbsisgod2006 said: Because if KC signs the transition tag with the skins would be obligated to eat the 28 mil if they couldn't trade him. They would be obligated to eat the 28 million if no other team made him a contract offer( I don't see that happening). If the team made a high offer, you'd have to let him go. If he gets only a lower offer, we could match it and have him long term. Obviously the situation is in disrepair, but I'm trying to justify in my mind that they MUST have left themselves some sort of leverage. Probably not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clskinsfan Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 1 minute ago, Monk4thaHALL said: You're incorrect once again. Both regarding the ability to tag as well as the numbers. No. You are wrong: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/28/10-things-to-know-about-the-franchise-tag/ http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/news/how-nfl-franchise-tag-works-exclusive-vs-non-exclusive-transition-difference/1w7mwh36nqnfw1qb7lne9t9ka0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyHolt Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 1 hour ago, redskinss said: What's to keep them from drafting a quarterback to groom behind Alex smith? Our front offices ongoing neurosis. I admit we may burn a late pick on a home run to make up for losing Nate, but not a top pick on a proper prospect. Teams almost always have 3 QBs in the fold. So mostly, Dan and the directive to win now and thus using said pick on other needs. Not to mention, our general inability or unwillingness to even try to groom a QB. Gruden finally got a project in Sudsy, who we then lost for nothing. We didn't protect him and got burned. In short, we have shown we don't like to waste a roster spot on a development QB. Meanwhile, Nate is dreaming about getting his ring fitted. Regardless, holes will need to be addressed: WR, cornerback (2?), MLB, RB ( I think we need 2), hands TE, maybe interior OL, I am certainly not counting on Zach Brown and Breeland to take a discount to stay in this **** show. Jordan Reed can no longer be counted on. Davis is no spring chicken and Sprinkle showed nothing. Perine showed a little promise including decent hands for a big boy but we need a RB. Look at the playoff/bowl teams. Guys that can catch and run are what drives offenses in 2018. Assuming CT will be back at 100% health seems risky and regardless injury can strike at any time. Without him, our offense imploded. We need a Tyreek Hill/ Kamara type for the guy we just pushed all in on to checkdown to, on ALL downs. Injuries devastated our team and I don't think we can count on all those guys being healthy this year. And, we like Colt McCoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbsisgod2006 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 6 minutes ago, Butters20 said: They would be obligated to eat the 28 million if no other team made him a contract offer( I don't see that happening). If the team made a high offer, you'd have to let him go. If he gets only a lower offer, we could match it and have him long term. Obviously the situation is in disrepair, but I'm trying to justify in my mind that they MUST have left themselves some sort of leverage. Probably not True but the other item that has to be considered is that KC would have to sign the tag too and this may not be in his best interest to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clskinsfan Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 1 minute ago, Gibbsisgod2006 said: True but the other item that has to be considered is that KC would have to sign the tag too and this may not be in his best interest to. Not in his best interest to pocket 28 or 34 million dollars next year? Hows that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RemoveSnyder Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, clskinsfan said: No. You are wrong: You're very confused here Sir. Do I have to go do your homework for you? 6 minutes ago, clskinsfan said: Nope. You can keep tagging them at 144% of the previous years salary. Lets say the Skins had decided to tag Kirk the next 3 years. His salaries would have been 34 mill, 49 mill then 70 mill. So you can see why 3 years is really the limit that any team would use. This is incorrect as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clskinsfan Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Just now, Monk4thaHALL said: You're very confused here Sir. Do I have to go do your homework for you? I just posted 3 links for you to become unconfused sir? You are wrong. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 22 minutes ago, DJHJR86 said: So to recap: Denver is now backtracking and saying they had no interest in Smith, the Browns (the BROWNS) didn't want to commit the amount of money and the time of the extension to Smith, but we did so that somehow means that Denver and Cleveland valued Smith higher than Cousins? I'm confused. If anything it shows you how inept our FO is if they went for a deal that even Cleveland thought was shaky. This is the 2nd time in Bruce Allen's tenure that we went overboard to keep the Browns from doing something colossally stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clskinsfan Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, Monk4thaHALL said: You're very confused here Sir. Do I have to go do your homework for you? This is incorrect as well. Wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbsisgod2006 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, clskinsfan said: Not in his best interest to pocket 28 or 34 million dollars next year? Hows that? Because it is obvious that KC does not want to be here in DC and that he said many times that he wants to see what his value in the free agency market is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RemoveSnyder Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 3 minutes ago, clskinsfan said: I just posted 3 links for you to become unconfused sir? You are wrong. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butz65 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 11 hours ago, skins2victory said: I don't see that happening. There are too many teams that would love to have him. We would trade his to the highest bidder. He has vale and would be traded somewhere for something. There is no way the front office will risk the cap by tagging Cousins in an attempt to trade him. There's no incentive for Cousins other than offering him an opportunity to screw the team badly. Let's say the Redskins tag him under either tag available ($28M or $34M). Once Cousins signs the contract the full value goes against this year's Cap. Now you go from having say $34M in cap room (after extending Foster, signing Smith, etc.) to somewhere between 0 - $6M. If Cousins simply decides to take the cash and wait (backup Smith) until 2019 to become an UFA (when the Redskins can no longer tag him) - say goodbye to all of the 20 or so players who are free agents coming out of last season - will have to be replaced by bargain basement off-the-street players. No chance we would be able to sign our first round pick much less our full list of drafted players (maybe a good thing the 3rd round pick is gone at that point). It's not likely that Cousins would do that (sign and stay - although not a bad gig if you can earn $28-34M guaranteed as a backup for one season). However, every team in the league knows he has that right. Why would any of them not greatly tilt a trade in their favor knowing the Redskins have no choice but to get rid of his cap hit? The sign and trade scenario simply makes no sense for the Redskins (and not really for Cousins either - he's better off having six or seven teams bid his cost up as an undrafted free agent). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RemoveSnyder Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 On 2/1/2018 at 9:16 AM, clskinsfan said: Wrong Look, fellow respected member of ES, you can only FRANCHISE tag a player 3 times. ONLY on the 3rd time does the salary increase by 144%. https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/agents-take-11-players-who-are-best-candidates-to-receive-franchise-tag-in-2018/ The increase otherwise, per the rules of the CBA, is 120%. https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/collective-bargaining-agreement-2011-2020.pdf Even after the 3rd franchise tag, the transititon tag can be applied. You wrote "guaranteed" to be an UFA, not true. That's what I'm referring to in terms of ability, as in rights per CBA. Your numbers were wrong, your understanding of the rules are wrong and you've got your rightfully and respected vigor misappropriated. So please enjoy a brink constitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJHJR86 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Since Cowherd's opinion is suddenly valued around here: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clskinsfan Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 1 minute ago, Monk4thaHALL said: That would be if they TRANSITION tag him this year. NOT FRANCHISE tag him. What good would the transition tag be? Kirk would just sign with another team and we wouldnt match it or get any compensation for losing him. At least if we let him leave via FA we would get a 3rd round comp pick. The only tag that could give us his exclusive rights is the franchise tag. And there is no chance we are risking 34 million for a draft pick. 1 minute ago, Monk4thaHALL said: Look dumbass, you can only FRANCHISE tag a player 3 times. ONLY on the 3rd time does the salary increase by 144%. The increase otherwise, per the rules of the CBA, is 120%. Even after the 3rd franchise tag the transititon tag can be applied. That's what I'm talking about in terms of ability. You're numbers were wrong, you're understanding of the rules are wrong and you've got your head up your ass. So please shut up now. Look buddy YOU ARE WRONG. There is no rule that prevents a team from franchising a player more than 3 times. The cost just become out of control to do it. Look it up and stop just spouting out stuff to back your argument. I have posted NUMEROUS links for your education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylorcooley1 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 1 hour ago, rterps2017 said: Is Allen just running off everyone Scott drafted I believe so..my father and I were talking about this last night.. Lol Hehe dumb ass..haha ..look buddy..haha sorry..carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumplestilskin Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 I think we do still have leverage to some degree assuming Alex Smith is also a trade option. It would be ruthless patriots type stuff but it is possible. BTW to all the ornary posters I am not comparing our FO to The Patriots so back off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Guys. No name calling. Attack the post, not the poster. Semma down now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylorcooley1 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Wholy **** I get it..we're gonna tag cousin's keep him around and trade Alex Smith for our pick back plus some...IIIIIII KNOW .. we trade Alex Smith to the Browns plus next years second round pick for their first round pick this year, the second one in the first round?.. we get Barkley if that's that running back from Penn State and the O lineman from Notre Dame with our 13th pick we pick up Le'Veon Bell and Jarvis Landry...Kirk ends up being our week one qb after all and fudge cycles and lollipops sprinkled with fairy dust and unicorns painted with rainbows,..I'm all over the place..uggghh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WelshSkinsFan Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 In response to several comments in this thread I have to say I have no interest whatsoever in tanking, committing to the tank or any other variation thereof. The proponents of this theory seem to think sucking hard for a season and netting a bunch of high draft picks will automatically lead to a turnaround in fortunes and the start of a footballing dynasty in the NFC East and yet there is a mass of empirical evidence that says this is not what will happen. The picks are lottery tickets, even the high first rounder, and can still all be losing tickets and with our front office probably will be. The most likely outcome of going in the tank always has and always will be that you will suck for years and it will be a long, painful process to pull yourself out of it. Most teams in this league are around .500 and we are right there too and I am fine with that. That doesn't mean I don't want to win it means I want a shot each year. The Patriots are an outlier, the majority of teams that win championships get hot once every few years but outside of that they stay consistent. The .500 teams enter each season with an even chance of finishing anywhere from 10-6 to 6-10, we have been there the last 3 years with Kirk and Alex will keep us in that range. The difference between 10-6 and 6-10 is usually how your luck goes through the season, we had ****ty luck in 2017 so finished 7-9 but if Doctson doesn't drop a sure TD and the refs don't call a bogus grounding penalty we are 9-7. The point of this is, when you are in this range you are one or two impact players and a hot streak away from a legitimate postseason run. The Saints had 3 straight 7-9 seasons but hit on a couple of players in the draft and were transformed this year and there are plenty of similar examples. The Ravens and Giants have 2 championships this millennium but have been average most of the years either side of those wins. I know average is not sexy and blowing it up seems like the way to go but the odds tell you that average gives you a better shot to win and means that every season can begin with hope and optimism. We had plenty of losing seasons that began with no hope of winning in the last 20 years, see the John Beck years for details. Those losing seasons netted us high draft picks and did nothing to change our fortunes. We now have a decent core of talent on our team, not every Quarterback to win a championship is a HOF player but you need competence at the position to get production from the rest of your talent and to build a winning culture. We have that now for a few more years and we have a window in which we can win by just adding a little more to the talent we have here and I am glad we are not throwing it all away to return to the purgatory of starting over. Superbowl LIII here we come! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTskin Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 1 hour ago, RandyHolt said: You know what sucks? Getting Alex Smith is basically admitting we cannot draft and develop QBs, even in a deep draft class. All this, in an era when young QBs have had unparalleled success very early in their careers. It's basically a snub at Jay and his staff while screaming - just win now! I completely disagree; Alex Smith allows us to continue the same system with no hiccups while also allowing us to build for the future. Imagine if we went into next season with Colt McCoy and a rookie QB (most likely not one of the premier QBs), how would we do? I'd predict 5 wins max and a wildcard QB of the future. No bueno for us. Instead, Jay got a QB who perfectly fits his system and we won't have to be QB-desperate in the next few drafts. This will allow us to take a later round QB and let them develop over a couple of years while sitting behind a seasoned vet. It's literally the ideal way of grooming a QB and not having to Mitch Trubisky it. 3 hours ago, justice98 said: That's what I was thinking. People forget that Moreau was supposed to be a steal in the draft and would've been a first round talent if not for injury. With so many guys in front of him, he just didnt get much chance to play last year. Now I get Fuller had shown a high level, while Moreau is still on potential, but that probably factored into the calculus. I'm 100% behind the Moreau hype, but he's not a slot corner. Maybe Hosley can step up, but that would need to be a big step; we went from having the #1 slot to being slot-cornerless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butz65 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 3 minutes ago, rumplestilskin said: I think we do still have leverage to some degree assuming Alex Smith is also a trade option. It would be ruthless patriots type stuff but it is possible. BTW to all the ornary posters I am not comparing our FO to The Patriots so back off. I don't get why this is so hard to understand. The Redskins have NO LEVERAGE with two QB's on the team taking up 95% of the cap. NONE, ZERO, NADA, ZILCH. Every other team in the NFL knows that the Redskins can't afford to keep both contracts. They also know that time is short between the beginning of the league year (March 14th) and the draft (can't sign any of your free agents - the Skins have a ton - with no cap room, can't prepare for the draft if you don't know which free agents you'll be bringing back...). Why would any team offer up anything of value to the Redskins in exchange for either QB under that scenario? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 8 minutes ago, Taylorcooley1 said: Wholy **** I get it..we're gonna tag cousin's keep him around and trade Alex Smith for our pick back plus some...IIIIIII KNOW .. we trade Alex Smith to the Browns plus next years second round pick for their first round pick this year, the second one in the first round?.. we get Barkley if that's that running back from Penn State and the O lineman from Notre Dame with our 13th pick we pick up Le'Veon Bell and Jarvis Landry...Kirk ends up being our week one qb after all and fudge cycles and lollipops sprinkled with fairy dust and unicorns painted with rainbows,..I'm all over the place..uggghh Will be pretty funny to see the backtracking and gymnastics by certain posters when Kirk just goes straight to free agency. Which is what is going to happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clskinsfan Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 1 minute ago, CTskin said: I'm 100% behind the Moreau hype, but he's not a slot corner. Maybe Hosley can step up, but that would need to be a big step; we went from having the #1 slot to being slot-cornerless. Dont forget we just resigned Quinton Dunbar to a three year deal as well. I know they are high on him. Maybe they feel like between Moreau and Dunbar they have the CB position covered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.