WP: Kirk Cousins breaks his silence after Redskins trade for Alex Smith

[Veryoldschool]

The Skins are losing off the field because the departing QB is the focus of attention instead of the future of the Skins, what a clown show.

[Mr_ Skinshead]

27 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

The Skins are losing off the field because the departing QB is the focus of attention instead of the future of the Skins, what a clown show.

What will ultimately activate the rescission of your Redskins fandom: a tag-free Cousins; the moment Cousins signs with another team; or is it something else that marks the official beginning of your moving along?

[tomwvr]

On 2/16/2018 at 8:57 AM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

My key is similar I hate losing draft capital.  It's my only beef with the Alex Smith deal but its a key beef.  If they signed Alex in FA it would be night and day for me.  But some people shrugging off the compensation of the trade and just zoning in on the target we acquired -- IMO is vintage Redskins during Dan's tenure.  The euphoria of the new toy.  Who cares what they gave up for the toy.  Just enjoy the toy, isn't it shiny and cool?  

 

An early 3rd rounder could easily be a Morgan Moses, Cooley, Jordan Reed type of player.  Losing Kendall Fuller IMO is akin to losing a first rounder -- he's a plug and play, young emerging player. 

 

I can't compare for example McCarron, Keenum versus Alex Smith in a vacuum. That doesn't make sense to me.  Yes I'd take Alex Smith if I looked at it that way.  But the reality is its Keenum or whomever and Fuller and a high third round pick versus Alex Smith.

 

And that's with me ignoring the whole Kirk negotiation.  And that's without delving into compensation that they might have been able to get for Kirk that they are unlikely to get now because of the timing of the trade.  Previously, you might have been able to transition tag Kirk, and trade him.  It was plausible because the idea that the Redskins would keep Kirk and that was a viable option hence leverage.  That's out the window now because of the timing of this.

 

So to me the deal smacks of desperation.  You can't wait for things to unfold.  You likely squander getting draft compensation for Kirk, too because of the haste.  IMO this could have likely been:

 

A. You have a young QB or a FA with all your picks and likely an additional pick or two from trading Kirk

Versus

B. You have an older QB.  Lost a high pick.  Lost a young key building block player.  And you likely get nothing or close to it for Kirk.

 

And we got some people (not you) saying this was slam dunk best case scenario.  They made the best out of a bad situation. And anyone complaining is just a hater.  IMO to each their own but that to me is absurd.  And this isn't me raining on Bruce and the FO just to rain on them.  We vetted all of these scenarios out weeks back before it happened.  I said then IMO trading for a veteran was worse case scenario for me. 

 

Edit:

I had to stop reading this article because it was too depressing to me.  But here is an opinion article doing an analysis of the trade using numbers.  Trade capital.  Alex versus Kirk, the whole nine yards.

https://www.hogshaven.com/2018/2/10/16993120/skins-stats-a-statistical-review-of-the-alex-smith-trade

 

 

1.  
2.  

   Ben Standig‏Verified account @BenStandig 16h16 hours ago

   More

   Ben Standig Retweeted Jim Owczarski

   Well lookie here. Specifically mentioned McCarron as one of the options for Redskins if they waited when folks said they had no choice but to get Alex Smith. Not better or worse, but options.

  

The Redskins have been trading for QBs since before I was born - ever hear of Sonny from the Eagles or Billy from New Orleans  when I was 4 ....

[carex]

4 hours ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

The Skins traded for Smith clearly they are moving from Cousins at QB.  I don't know what the rules but if the rules prohibit holding a player hostage the Skins seem to in an indefensible position because of the Smith trade.   The Skins lost a lot of cap space trying to be clever before and got spanked did they learn?  Maybe not,  perhaps Snyder is stupid enough to try something with Cousins instead of taking the 2019 draft pick.

 

the rules say you may tag a player three times. 

[mistertim]

The Skins trying to tag and trade and Cousins refusing to sign would basically be a two sided game of Russian roulette. On one hand the Skins would be saddled with the tag amount until/if Kirk plays ball, and on the other hand Kirk would be pretty likely to miss out on some suitors once FA starts. A super QB needy team like the Jets, Browns, or Broncos would have to basically just hope that the situation gets resolved and sit with their fingers crossed once FA begins....that's a pretty risky proposition. I'd be inclined to see those teams potentially deciding to use their top draft picks for a QB as the risk of winding up with their hands empty would be pretty scary, and perhaps going with a stopgap like Keenum, McCarron, maybe making an offer for Foles, or taking a chance on Teddy B while the rookie learns. The Browns and Jets especially are not in a "win now" situation anyway. Denver is certainly closer but their window is going to be closing IMO.

[HOF44]

If I was KC and they tagged me unless I got exactly what I wanted I’d sign it and show up for OTA’s and to play out the season. That’s the biggest middle finger you could give them. 

[mistertim]

13 minutes ago, HOF44 said:

If I was KC and they tagged me unless I got exactly what I wanted I’d sign it and show up for OTA’s and to play out the season. That’s the biggest middle finger you could give them. 

 

Unless the Skins decided to be extra dickish and bench him for the whole year or deactivate him. Yeah, he would get paid for doing nothing, but I have a feeling Kirk wouldn't want to go an entire year without taking a single snap. I have little doubt that it would affect his 2019 offers. He'd then be a 31 year old QB who hadn't played a down of football in over a year.

[HOF44]

15 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Unless the Skins decided to be extra dickish and bench him for the whole year or deactivate him. Yeah, he would get paid for doing nothing, but I have a feeling Kirk wouldn't want to go an entire year without taking a single snap. I have little doubt that it would affect his 2019 offers. He'd then be a 31 year old QB who hadn't played a down of football in over a year.

But also be 34 million richer. And stick the Skins with like almost 60 mill tied up in QB’s. Id also tell them ahead of time this is my plan.  I’d be like go ahead make my day. 

 

Also imagine the circus!!

[SkinsFTW]

Even if they try to do that Cousins would end up starting anyway because Alex Smith is going to look like a scrub with our no talent offense and if they are paying 2 QBs over 50M they won't be signing anybody else.

[beachboy757]

I'd be willing to bet the Redskins FO just threw this tag and trade deal out there to see if the Browns or Jets would bite since they have a lot to offer. I'm surprised this is still a story.  I also have to roll my eyes at anyone who would feel bad for Kirk if that did happen. It would be a win/win for him.  In one scenario he would get to leave (like he wants) and start with a new team and in the other scenario he just made $70 mil in 3 years! Poor baby!

[88Comrade2000]

CBA gives Kirk Cousins an immediate path to checkmate, if Washington tags him again

[Est.1974]

Talk of the Bills looking to trade up for Rosen as well. Not that I could see Kirk at the Bills, but it's going to be interesting seeing all these QB related leaks filter out over the next couple of weeks upto and including the combine.

[goskins10]

8 hours ago, carex said:

 

the rules say you may tag a player three times. 

 

This is a common misconception. There is actually no specific limit to the number of times a QB can be tagged. What makes it limiting is the escalating salaries - so in effect it's very unlikely that anyone would tag a QB more than 3 times - as we have seen 3 times is already pretty expensive. But there is no specific rule stating a QB can only be tagged three times. 

 

All non-QBs can only be tagged twice. That is a specific rule in the CBA. 

 

 

 

As for Kirk - this is all just bluster. Bruce is stubborn but he is not completely stupid - at least he better not be. He is jsut trying to get someone to blink before the tag deadline as that's his only chance to get a tag and trade - assuming he could convince Kirk to play along - I have my doubts.

 

I am pretty certain the talk of the grievance being filed was Kirk's agent trying to goad Bruce into something foolish like tagging Kirk. Kirk would then hold all the cards. He can sign it then refuse to negotiate a LTD with anyone - and please people stop with the 1 yr rental for $34M stuff. That is just a fantasy to try and get something to work. Is it technically doable? Yes. But it would be career suicide for whatever GM tries such a dumb ass move. 

 

Or he can not sign it then hold the team hostage. As for the team pulling the tag, If I were Kirk I would wait until just before the draft which ties up the Redskins money during the biggest part of free agency but keeps them from trading him - even if someone it dumb anough to consider a $34M one year rental. They will not pull the tag before the draft if they do go down this insidious path. Because there will still be plenty of QB needy teams left. After the draft not so much.  

 

This biggest part of this whole tag and trade discussion is that people actually thinking it's an option are looking at it from only the teams side. Yes, it would help the team. However, Kirk has zero - less than zero to gain from helping the team. And no it does not ensure he goes to the team he wants. Onc he is a FA - and he will become a FA either now or next year - he can pick where he goes. At the point the team tags him it stops being about the best situation and becomes all about money. 

 

Bottom line is that once again if he is tagged he holds all the cards - period. You can talk possibilities and chances all you want. But the bottom line actual reality is that it's a stupid ass move that would only to made to pacify Bruce Allen's massive ego. If I were Kirk at that time I would do anything I could to screw Bruce over and make him look even worse. So yes, at that point I would get both petty and vindictive and make $34M doing it. But that's just me. Who knows what Kirk would do. 

 

This does not even mention that the Redskins then become that the last choice to play for any Free Agents of value. If anyone thinks players don't watch this type of crap and have it influence their decision on where to play, I have to say that's pretty naive. 

[Est.1974]

Naive? Not in the NFL.

 

The Kirk saga has dragged on for nearly 2 years. The third tag scenario to screw him has always been on the table.

 

Hasn't put Alex Smith off, he's thrilled we were interested.

[goskins10]

4 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

Naive? Not in the NFL.

 

The Kirk saga has dragged on for nearly 2 years. The third tag scenario to screw him has always been on the table.

 

Hasn't put Alex Smith off, he's thrilled we were interested.

 

Lol , where to start?  First, Alex was not a free agent. He was traded. Second, and most important - the tag has not happened yet! So exactly how could there be any impact from a move that has not happened? The 3rd tag you were talking about was when the team was ostensibly intending to keep Kirk here. Not tagging him to jerk him around and with no intention to keep him on the team. It is completely different. 

 

And Alex Smith is a horrible example either way. He has $71M reasons for being excited. That brings me to the last point here is that I never said no players would come here - I said it would influence their decision. Money talks bull**** walks. You pay a guy enough money and that will also influence their decision. The problem with that is now the team is back - yes back - to over paying for quality free agents (even more than normal) or missing out on them completely. 

 

So again - if anyone thinks that if Bruce Allen and the Redskins tag Kirk just to try and get something out of him before kicking him the rest of the way to the curb will not have a negative impact on free agent decisions, they are being naive. 

[skinzplay]

Yep, it's gonna be leak central in the comings weeks -- agents trying to drive up interest in their QB clients, teams trying to pull the ol' okie doke on their competitors.......it's fun to watch, especially since none of it really reveals true interest or intention. I'm still not convinced that many of this year's crop of QBs are franchise caliber. Some teams, though, have begun to make staffing moves that suggest that they plan to bring in a youngster and develop him --- Buffalo and Minnesota. Not sure what this means for Cousins, but with so many other, cheaper free agent QBs out there, I'm still trying to figure out where the kid is gonna end up. Denver just doesn't have the cap space, and even if they could create more, how long is Joseph (and his coaching staff) going to last out there? Cousins wants to win, yes, but he also wants stability.

[Birdlives]

This whole grievance thing is incredibly stupid. The skins merely have to offer Cousins a nominal contract after applying the tag and they’d be absolved. The Pats franchised Cassell with Brady on the roster, lol. Meanwhile the Redskins have yet to trade for anyone officially. Leave it to PFT to have an agenda.

[Est.1974]

5 hours ago, goskins10 said:

Lol , where to start?  First, Alex was not a free agent. He was traded. Second, and most important - the tag has not happened yet! So exactly how could there be any impact from a move that has not happened? The 3rd tag you were talking about was when the team was ostensibly intending to keep Kirk here. Not tagging him to jerk him around and with no intention to keep him on the team. It is completely different. 

 

Really? First, he may have been traded but that trade was driven by his agreement on an extension, he could have refused. You suggest Alex is a bad example, well he's the only one we have so what basis do you have to call any opposition to your opinion naive?

 

second, I agree the tag hasn't happened but anyone who couldn't see that talk coming is being naive.

 

third, who out there thinks we've really tried to keep Kirk around long term? Now that's naive.

[Voice_of_Reason]

On 2/16/2018 at 12:24 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Thanks, you are a good spar debate person yourself.  I was initially a Jay critic though not as intense as others were in year one, I recall saying back then he's a B level coach who my fear is that he will be outdone by the  A level types in the league.

...

...

I actually wasn't all that high or low on the hire.  Of the 2 Cincy coordinators, I preferred Zimmer from the outset (and said so at the time.) My biggest question about Gruden was whether we were getting a fit for Griffin, because at that point, I think the prevailing thought was to still make things work with Griffin. I didn't know if Gruden's offense and style was really going to mesh with Griffin.  

 

However, I was more than willing to give him a chance. And I even completely forgave him for all of the QB switches in 2014.  I even forgave him for not firing Haz and replacing him and the rest of the defensive coaches who had essentially failed for 4 years.  He was in an impossible position, it was worth trying to figure out if Griffin could play or not.  And there were injuries, and idiocy from Dan and Bruce.  

 

There is one defining moment for me when I flipped from "give him a chance" to "this guy is in over his head:" when he hired Joe Barry, and then subsequently when it didn't work. If you're going to hire a guy with LITERALLY the worst defensive coordinator resume in the history of the league, then you better damn well be right about it.  I said it was a dumb move as soon as it happened, it was a dumb move for 2 years, and then he had to fire Joe.  I haven't heard anything about Jay being forced into hiring Joe.  I'm sure Bruce liked him because of the Tampa connection; I am also sure Dan wasn't pushing for Joe Barry.  

 

As soon as I saw that move, and when it subsequently failed, everything else that happened from a coaching perspective tallied to Gruden's room bill:

- Losing every opener, and in general looking un-prepared in all of them.

- Consistently getting out-maneuvered at the end of half and games.  Our 2 minute offense and defense has been "ick" essentially the entire time he's been here.

- Total inability to coach up a running game.  And I think there's as much scheme involved in that as players. 

- Players making mental mistakes all over the place, and being put out there again and again to make the same mistakes.  No accountability.

- Collapses at the end of the 2016 and 2017 seasons

- Total inability to manage the clock.

- Having several "big" games at the end of seasons where they can stay in the race, and just being wiped out and eliminated.  

- Losing to the Giants, who had nothing to play for, in the finale of 2016, when a win puts them into the playoffs.

- Overall record since 2015 (when he had a legitimate starting QB and discounting his first year of 9-7, 8-7-1, 7-9 for a total of 24-23-1.  Not terrible, but not great.

- Records going backwards every year.  Really not great. 

- Having 2 score leads in A LOT of games (Cooley did the math on this, I don't remember exactly what it is) and then letting teams at least get even.  Blowing leads has become a trend. And I put a lot of that on conservative coaching both offensively and defensively. 

- Inability to just win a game big.  How many times since 2015 have we been playing a bad team, or at least a less talented team, and not been able to put them away, and had the game go right to the end? A great example was the 49ers early this year.  We were life-and-death with them, the next year a pretty good but not great Dallas team blew their doors off. 

 

I also discount some of the "oh the injuries" excuse for 2017, though not all.  The Eagles just lost their starting LT, MVP caliber QB, starting RB, and few players on defense and won the freaking Superbowl.  Were the 'Skins hit harder? Maybe.  I'm not sure, losing Wentz and Peters was a HUGE loss. Pederson is a better coach, and they probably have some better pieces.  Also, the 'Skins without the significant injuries in 2015 and 2016, they didn't manage more than 9 wins.  So, yeah, it's a thing. Injuries had an effect. But I am still going to hold Gruden accountable for the coaching lapses through the year. 

 

I give Jay credit for keeping the team competitive.  Apart from the San Diego game this year, when they just looked like they didn't want to be there, they play hard and stay engaged. They had a really good win against the Rams where it really looked like he out-coached McVay.  So kudos there.  I also give him credit for getting that win in Seattle.  The caveat being if the Seahawks kicker doesn't miss 3 FGs, the 'Skins lose the game.   

 

And there is a difference between being a good talent evaluator and being a good personnel decision maker.  You can be one without being the other.  I have no doubt Jay can evaluate talent.  I also have no doubt that he needs somebody to counter-balance his position so that we don't end up with Ryan Grant and Rob Kelley as day 1 starters.  

 

Finally, and this isn't on Jay, but if the "he can get along with the owner and GM better than others and that's why he's a good fit," that's a load of crap on the owner and GM.  And the GM needs to be fired because Bruce is an idiot.  I don't see Craft and BillyB sitting around watching playoff games together. You don't have to like each other, just get along and work well together.  I'm sure Jay is a great guy.  And I'm sure that Bruce and Dan are comfortable with him.  And I guess in this situation, eh, fine, whatever.  But that basically means we're stuck on average at best until they fix that.  

 

I really group Jay a lot with Norv.  Nor was/is an absolutely terrific OC.  But he didn't have the "it" he needed to be a winning HC.  A lot of the same symptoms were visible in all of Norv's teams.  Lack of attention to detail.  Losing close games.  Bad clock management.  Etc. Norv is a HOF level offensive mind, but couldn't get it done as a HC.  I personally think we're going to see exactly the same from Jay as the years go on.  I really hope I'm wrong.  I really do.  But until I see them put together a 10-win season I'm going to remain skeptical.  

 

[skinzplay]

22 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I actually wasn't all that high or low on the hire.  Of the 2 Cincy coordinators, I preferred Zimmer from the outset (and said so at the time.)

 

Man, I agree with every single word you typed in that post! Didn't want to quote the whole thing (for space purposes), but from my vantage point at least, you hit the nail on the head.

[goskins10]

22 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

Really? First, he may have been traded but that trade was driven by his agreement on an extension, he could have refused. You suggest Alex is a bad example, well he's the only one we have so what basis do you have to call any opposition to your opinion naive?

 

second, I agree the tag hasn't happened but anyone who couldn't see that talk coming is being naive.

 

third, who out there thinks we've really tried to keep Kirk around long term? Now that's naive.

 

Clearly you are taking the word naive personally. It was not my intent to offend. Interestingly I don't recall stating you were personally being naive. So I have to assume your being defensive about it must mean that you don't think the team tagging Kirk with the sole clear purpose of just trying to get something out of him like a commodity will negatively impact free agents decisions. So I mean this as an honest question - how do you get there? What makes you think it will have little to no impact? I am just not sure how you can come to that conclusion. What you are saying is that free agents that are on the open market will not care much if at all that the team played loose with the rules to try and strong arm him into helping them after a clearly contentious relationship (regardless of who anyone thinks is at fault hopefully we can all agree that the relationship is not good). 

 

I still do not agree Alex is a good example as he was not a FA and he made the decision negotiate without knowing for sure that the team would tag Kirk a third time even if he agrees to a long term deal and the trade. There is no way he could have because none of it had happened yet. So again, it's a completely different dynamic.

 

For your second - you are putting two things together that do not go together due to timing. Yes, it was clear from the day they tagged him last year and did not come to an agreement for a LTD that a 3rd tag was an option. However, up until the team agreed to the Alex trade in principal (not technically done till the season starts) that tag was to keep Kirk as the starting QB. While that does turn some players off a little, the tag stigma is going away some, especially seeing how Kirk and his agent were able to manipulate the tag in their favor. However, once they agreed to a trade for Alex, that whole dynamic changed. There is no way many if any saw that coming. Anyone who did, good on them. So to just say anyone not seeing the tag as a possibility over simplifies the situation. You have to separate before the Alex trade and after as now the tag would just be to strong arm Kirk with no intention to keep him on the team as it's clear at least right now he wants to hit free agency. Other teams have done a tag and trade but they had the player being tagged support. The Redskins do not have that support from Kirk, 

 

The last thing - I am really not sure where you are going with that. I will take a guess that maybe you are stating that everyone believes the team did not take a real run at Kirk and it has not impacted Fee Agents? I mean that's a huge stretch, but it's honestly the only thing I can see. I am virtually certain that players noticed how the team treated Kirk. Honestly, some will not like it, others will not care, and some may even say hey they just trying to win. But up until now nothing has had th appearance of being spiteful - maybe to some but it should not. Dumb? Yes. Poorly calculated? Yes. But malicious? No. I believe a tag now will be seen by most players as malicious and spiteful. To think it will not have impact of very little impact I believe is a mistake.  

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

I give Jay credit for keeping the team competitive.  Apart from the San Diego game this year, when they just looked like they didn't want to be there, they play hard and stay engaged. They had a really good win against the Rams where it really looked like he out-coached McVay.  So kudos there.  I also give him credit for getting that win in Seattle.  The caveat being if the Seahawks kicker doesn't miss 3 FGs, the 'Skins lose the game.   

 

And there is a difference between being a good talent evaluator and being a good personnel decision maker.  You can be one without being the other.  I have no doubt Jay can evaluate talent.  I also have no doubt that he needs somebody to counter-balance his position so that we don't end up with Ryan Grant and Rob Kelley as day 1 starters.  

 

Finally, and this isn't on Jay, but if the "he can get along with the owner and GM better than others and that's why he's a good fit," that's a load of crap on the owner and GM.  And the GM needs to be fired because Bruce is an idiot.  I don't see Craft and BillyB sitting around watching playoff games together. You don't have to like each other, just get along and work well together.  I'm sure Jay is a great guy.  And I'm sure that Bruce and Dan are comfortable with him.  And I guess in this situation, eh, fine, whatever.  But that basically means we're stuck on average at best until they fix that.  

 

I really group Jay a lot with Norv.  Nor was/is an absolutely terrific OC.  But he didn't have the "it" he needed to be a winning HC.  A lot of the same symptoms were visible in all of Norv's teams.  Lack of attention to detail.  Losing close games.  Bad clock management.  Etc. Norv is a HOF level offensive mind, but couldn't get it done as a HC.  I personally think we're going to see exactly the same from Jay as the years go on.  I really hope I'm wrong.  I really do.  But until I see them put together a 10-win season I'm going to remain skeptical.  

 

 

I was working on responses for specific points but my computer crashed and I am too lazy to redo that all.  

 

So I'll go for highlights:

 

2017 season ended 3-3 after Chris Thompson got hurt.  They won 2 out of the last 3. They were decimated and it got even more comical at the end with Zach Brown, Thompson, Jordan Reed, Nicholson, Trent all out for the count.

 

2016 season - yeah the Giants-Panthers games were painful.  I just don't think either team is a good matchup for the Redskins -- monster D lines that can quickly make the Redskins one dimensional = no good.  I put that more on the roster than coaching

 

2015 season -- ended well.

 

Shanny was bad at clock management.  Ditto Gibbs in his 2nd stint.  It's sadly common around the league.  Yeah ditto Jay.

 

As for the FO and owner.  IMO it looms as a major deal in the soup.     

 

I didn't like the Barry hire either.  But I think he learned from it seeing how he chased Phillips the next time around.

 

My point is we can take apart just about any coach save for Belichick and maybe a few others.  Is Andy Reid the culture building winner-innovator -- or is he the lost puppy with clock management and struggles at the end of the season?  

 

[RandyHolt]

I have suggested tagging Cousins, without really knowing all the rules details and scenarios. Many here provided great reasons why we shouldn't - basically that it is a non-starter discussion.  I then wonder why Cousins would threaten a grievance if there was no good reason that we would tag him.  I guess that shows how much he thinks of our front offense, that they may actually be considering it despite being a horrible stunt. Or is it.

[Skinsinparadise]

I gather this means its not just a rumor that they'd file a grievance. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/football-insider/wp/2018/02/18/kirk-cousins-will-file-grievance-with-players-union-if-redskins-use-franchise-tag-on-him/?utm_term=.516091d3c36f

The Washington Redskins can officially tag Kirk Cousins starting on Tuesday. But if they do, expect the quarterback to go on the offensive.

Cousins will file a grievance through the NFL players’ union if the Redskins stick a franchise tag on him, according to a person with knowledge of the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The basis for the complaint is simple: Cousins could argue that the organization is violating the terms of the collective bargaining agreement because the team has no intention of engaging in good-faith negotiations on a long-term deal, or having him play under the franchise tag amount of $34.5 million guaranteed in 2018.

Several league sources have characterized the potential act of tagging Cousins as a “spiteful” move, citing the spirit of the franchise tag and the ongoing saga involving both camps. The franchise tag is typically used to buy teams more time so that they can continue contract talks on a possible long-term deal. Players who are tagged have to sign a multiyear contract or extension by 4 p.m. on July 16.

 

 

 

[zoony]

Seriously Im hoping they do franchise him at this point.  If the skins are going to suck ass, might as well go full bad guy wrestler.  At least they can be interesting