Serious Question: Do you regret letting Cousins go?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

20 hours ago, ananoman said:

 

  Let's see, since 2000 the Ravens have qualified for the NFL playoffs eleven times, with two Super Bowl championship titles (Super Bowl XXXV and Super Bowl XLVII), two AFC Championship titles (2000 and 2012), 15 playoff victories, four AFC Championship game appearances (2000, 2008, 2011 and 2012), five AFC North division titles (2003, 2006, 2011, 2012, and 2018), and they are the current odds on favorite to win the super bowl this season.  And if it wasn't for the fact that they have had to contend with the Patriots in the AFC, their record would likely be even better.  

 

Yes, they really destroyed themselves with their poor decision making, unlike the Redskins.......

 

How many of those eleven playoff seasons occurred AFTER signing Flacco to that monstrous contract? Since that was the point of the post you were responding to, that might be relevant.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

24 minutes ago, Tsailand said:

 

5 games.  Got benched at halftime in the 6th game, while on pace for a 30 TD 5000 yard season.

 

If Gruden had the brains to stick with Kirk in 2014, many things would have gone differently.  We might still have them both (not that Gruden is a big loss).

 

Kirk's production was trending downward horribly, which is why he was benched.

 

First 2 games - 5 TDs, 1 INT, 339 yds per game average. 6.2 TD%. 1.2 INT%.

 

Next 3 1/2 games - 5 TDs, 8 INTS, 295 yds per game average. 4.1 TD%. 6.5 INT% (!!!)

 

The whole "on pace" argument that often gets brought up is incredibly weak.

 

 

13 hours ago, The Hangman- C_Hamberger said:

Why isn't this in the tailgate? I seem to remember a direction that non redskins topics belong there? Same old BS

 

ATN, not Tailgate lol...but this is Redskins-related so it can be in the Stadium as well, I would imagine.

[ananoman]

44 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

How many of those eleven playoff seasons occurred AFTER signing Flacco to that monstrous contract? Since that was the point of the post you were responding to, that might be relevant.

My point is that even exceptional  GM's like Ozzie Newsome, who's resume is basically the entire list of accomplishments of the Baltimore Ravens and whom IMO was one of the best GM's in the NFL, will take a calculated gamble on a big contract.  Sometimes they pan out (eg Jonathan Ogden was signed to the biggest contract at the time for an offensive lineman in NFL history in 2000, and that season they won the super bowl)  sometimes they don't.

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, ananoman said:

My point is that even exceptional  GM's like Ozzie Newsome, who's resume is basically the entire list of accomplishments of the Baltimore Ravens and whom IMO was one of the best GM's in the NFL, will take a calculated gamble on a big contract.  Sometimes they pan out (eg Jonathan Ogden was signed to the biggest contract at the time for an offensive lineman in NFL history in 2000, and that season they won the super bowl)  sometimes they don't.

 

But out of context for why I didnt want to do it and part of a larger conversation.  QB contracts are taking a larger and larger slice of the piez what does it say that an organization as successful as you say can also be decimated by being trapped into paying their franchise QB far more then they are actually should or could actually afford?  That wasnt jus any mistakes that was a sign if things to come for other franchises. 

 

The stunning reaction was the number of teams that focused on getting s solid QB on a rookie deal, not to keep their overpaid veteran franchise QB.  That's what the Cheifs, Ravens, and Texans did, I said that what we should've done if we didnt want to keep Cousins.  I didnt endorse extending Alex as a gap QB until a rookie could be found with a higher ceiling then Cousins could be found, but I do support making sure if you going to give some a giant contract that you make sure they are actually worth it or take the risk on someone else, even if that means trading the guy you already have instead of jus extending them and hoping for the best.

[Renegade7]

@Veryoldschool I can respect you saying you were willing to extend him after his first full season as a starter, that's going out on the limb theres most didnt want to do it or thought it was a good idea.

 

I dont know why it wont let me quote you, but what I'm not going to do is look at the crazy decisions other franchises make through the lense of how terrible the Redskins are, saying at least its not as bad as the Redskins. 

 

Keep in mind Kirk's first full year with Vikings they didnt make the playoffs and he got blasted by everyone, even his teammates.  He said during the press conference that he needed 3 years to get the offense in the end of year less conference and folks started putting two and two together that he was on a 3 year deal and already negotiating for the next one.  Today, hes not the same QB I said "no" to, took a couple games this season, but it seems like hes finally focusing on where hes at and jus playing football.  Theres no promise he would take that approach here.

 

I'm not going to play the what if game on extending him in 2015 on the assumption everything would work in my favor to help my arguement that that was the right decision. I could not forsee what would happen if we didnt, nor can I forsee what happened if we did.  I think many if us hoped and assumed that not extending him in 2015 wed have to overpay but it would happen. 

 

Did you feel in 2015 that not extending him would lead to him walking and us getting nothing?

[Veryoldschool]

 

 

 

 

30 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Did you feel in 2015 that not extending him would lead to him walking and us getting nothing?

 

No, I didn't I thought after he played even better in 2016 that even Snyder would be smart enough to understand Kirk Cousins was the best player during his tenure as an owner and shower Cousins with a rich contract.  Instead, the idiots blew it again and jerked Cousins around.  

 

I fellow the Vikings because of Cousins and fervently hope he can win a couple of Super Bowls and make it to Hall of Fame because I like him but also because I want Snyder and the ridiculous army of NeverKirkers to suffer.

[Unbias]

3 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

Kirk's production was trending downward horribly, which is why he was benched.

 

First 2 games - 5 TDs, 1 INT, 339 yds per game average. 6.2 TD%. 1.2 INT%.

 

Next 3 1/2 games - 5 TDs, 8 INTS, 295 yds per game average. 4.1 TD%. 6.5 INT% (!!!)

 

The whole "on pace" argument that often gets brought up is incredibly weak.

 

I'm calling BS on Kirk's production trending downward horribly. Let's look at his entire career: 

 

Year	Age	Tm	Pos	No.	G	GS	QBrec	Cmp	Att	Cmp%	Yds	TD	TD%	Int	Int%	1D	Lng	Y/A	AY/A	Y/C	Y/G	Rate	QBR	Sk	Yds	NY/A	ANY/A	Sk%	4QC	GWD	AV
Career					89	84	42-40-2	2023	3022	66.9	23260	150	5.0	68	2.3	1104	81	7.7	7.7	11.5	261.3	97.1		168	1267	6.89	6.88	5.3	10	13	55
6 yrs		WAS			62	57	26-30-1	1372	2096	65.5	16206	99	4.7	55	2.6	763	81	7.7	7.5	11.8	261.4	93.7		106	847	6.98	6.75	4.8	8	12	43
2 yrs
2012	24	WAS	qb	12	3	1	1-0-0	33	48	68.8	466	4	8.3	3	6.3	20	77	9.7	8.6	14.1	155.3	101.6	77.7	3	27	8.61	7.53	5.9	1	1	2
2013	25	WAS	qb	12	5	3	0-3-0	81	155	52.3	854	4	2.6	7	4.5	42	62	5.5	4.0	10.5	170.8	58.4	41.7	5	32	5.14	3.67	3.1			-2
2014	26	WAS	qb	8	6	5	1-4-0	126	204	61.8	1710	10	4.9	9	4.4	75	81	8.4	7.4	13.6	285.0	86.4	52.0	8	70	7.74	6.77	3.8			4
2015	27	WAS	QB	8	16	16	9-7-0	379	543	69.8	4166	29	5.3	11	2.0	205	78	7.7	7.8	11.0	260.4	101.6	71.7	26	186	6.99	7.14	4.6	2	3	12
2016*	28	WAS	QB	8	16	16	8-7-1	406	606	67.0	4917	25	4.1	12	2.0	227	80	8.1	8.0	12.1	307.3	97.2	66.1	23	190	7.52	7.45	3.7	4	4	15
2017	29	WAS	QB	8	16	16	7-9-0	347	540	64.3	4093	27	5.0	13	2.4	194	74	7.6	7.5	11.8	255.8	93.9	54.2	41	342	6.46	6.38	7.1	1	4	12
2018	30	MIN	QB	8	16	16	8-7-1	425	606	70.1	4298	30	5.0	10	1.7	218	75	7.1	7.3	10.1	268.6	99.7	58.2	40	262	6.25	6.48	6.2	1	0	12
2019	31	MIN	QB	8	11	11	8-3-0	226	320	70.6	2756	21	6.6	3	0.9	123	66	8.6	9.5	12.2	250.5	114.8	64.3	22	158	7.60	8.43	6.4	1	1

 

He's been pretty consistent. I'd also argue that if after 5 years of him being on the team you know what you are getting. Having a 5 game slip up shouldn't mean much in the grander context. 

 

For example, if Dak has a few more games like yesterday does that mean the Cowboys won't extend? Hell no. Might get them $1-2M off the annual price, but not a reason to move on. 

 

The reason why Kirk isn't still a Redskin is simple - Bruce constantly tried to low ball him. Kirk's side just got fed up, dug their feet in and essentially forced their move off the team.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Let’s see:  Do you regret passing on a future hof for a broken leg and a college freshman QB.

 

HAIL NO!

 

 

kirk wanted out because we have a horrible culture. What Bruce wanted was irrelevant. Even if he topped the Vikings offer Kirk passes.

[Veryoldschool]

 

 

 

1

6 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The Vikings aren't as loaded as some here think. The defense is pedestrian and ranked that way.  Their pass blocking is pedestrian and ranked that way, too.  With Thielan missing much of the season, it's been mostly a one-man receiver gig in Diggs.   He has a really good RB.   But unlike someone like Alex last season, he's not just game managing around the RB and defense but instead is putting up fat numbers to move the offense himself in the mix.

 

I agree with you regarding the Vikings roster, it is weaker than you would expect on a 8-3 team.    The defense is overrated, the pass defense is poor teams can dink and dunk all day long on the Vikings because the defensive backs play soft coverage and the DL doesn't apply much pressure.  When the Vikings blitz it is effective but they rarely blitz so teams are able to move the ball throw the air very easily between the 20's.  The Vikings tighten up in the Red Zone.  They have a decent rush defense but in total the Vikings defense doesn't live up to its reputation. 

 

The invested in upgrading the OL in 2019 and it does a good job of zone blocking for the run game and the Vikings have 2 very good running backs, so a very good running game.  The OL does a poor job of pocket pass protection so 5 and 7 step drops are problematic for Cousins but he has been very effective with play-action and bootlegs and rollouts.

 

I think Zimmer handicaps the Vikings with his conservative approach.  Until they went 2-2 and the receivers started complaining Zimmer had them dropping Cousins in the pocket 3rd downs and the OL couldn't protect him.  After the crisis, Zimmer loosened up the offense and it became one of the best in the league.  The offense is better than the defense when properly used.   Kirk is on his way to another 4K+ season and currently has 21 TDs to 3 INTs.

 

I think the Vikings are going to get beat by Seattle but I think they win the rest of the games and finish 12-4.  Hopefully, they have a good run in the playoffs.  I think their pass defense and Zimmer's conservative nature will undo them short of the Super Bowl but I'd love to see them win it all.

[Skinsinparadise]

@Veryoldschool

 

I saw that Thielen might be coming back this week which should help him.  I've met Kirk multiple times, total gentleman.  Good dude IMO.  The fact that it makes Dan-Bruce miserable (according to some like Sheehan) when he succeeds then if so, it makes me very happy to see him kill it.   Right now he clearly got the last laugh -- he is in a good organization that's going places.  And the organization he left is currently in shambles.  And heck he already beat his former organization one on one.    Can it get any better for Kirk and any worse for Dan-Bruce?

 

I still find it hilarious the story that Bruce spotted a Kirk jersey in the 980 radio studio last year and went nuts and told them to remove it immediately.  

 

As for the contract, I don't 100% agree with some of what's being said here by some about the contract negotiation.  Kirk himself said he'd still be here he thought if they beat the Giants at the end of the 2016 season.  There looked to be some give from Kirk's camp (not a lot though) on the contract from those who covered it.  But even if I believed there was no give, it wouldn't have mattered to me anyway because the Redskins never gave him a competitive offer. 

 

It would be like me complaining about a house being sold for $500,000 and claiming that the seller wouldn't sell it unless I did it as a full cash offer at that price.  Yet, I offer them $350,000 with $200,000 cash.  No one would take me seriously and they shouldn't.  If I offered them $450,000 and $400,000 cash then at least I could say hey I gave a competitive offer (at least some like Mike Jones felt back then that an offer like that would have worked but they never did it) and tested their resolve.  The Vikings offered 31 million more in guarantees.  That's a lot.  The two offers weren't even close.

 

From what I read the offer was 5 years for less than 110 million, 2 of which was guaranteed including the one franchise year he was already making as is, so it just adding one year guaranteed.  Adds to less than 22 million a year.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/redskins/2017/07/17/redskins-bruce-allen-team-offered-kirk-cousins-53-million-guaranteed/485980001/

But Allen’s statement — rare because it included public comment on specifics of contract negotiations — was somewhat misleading. That initial guarantee included the $24 million the team had already committed to Cousins for 2017, so the additional guarantee was just $29 million — far less than what Cousins likely will be able to get by waiting until 2018.

 

https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/washington-redskins/redskins-offer-looks-decent-surface-was-not-nearly-enough-get-cousins-deal-done

The Redskins tried. Kinda. 

Team president Bruce Allen revealed terms of the Redskins' largest contract offer to Kirk Cousins on Monday, and while the team guaranteed $53 million, the quarterback turned it down. 

...The figure — $53 million — seems staggering. In reality, however, the offer constituted the bare minimum of guaranteed cash that Cousins would even consider. 

He’s due to make $24 million this year, fully guaranteed, on the franchise tag. In 2018, if the Redskins placed the lower-costing transition tag on Cousins, he would make $28 million, again fully guaranteed. 

That adds up to $52 million, or just one million less than the Redskins offer. 

[JSSkinz]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Kirk himself said he'd still be here he thought if they beat the Giants at the end of the 2016 season. 

This is the direct quote.

 

"I felt like if we won I would still be there, we went 7-9 that year and the team said hey 7-9 isn't what we are trying to be. I think if we had gone 11-5 I would still be there. That's fine, life has its turns."

 

Starts at 33:20

https://www.podbean.com/eu/pb-se7y8-bc2dd9

 

[Skinsinparadise]

37 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

This is the direct quote.

 

"I felt like if we won I would still be there, we went 7-9 that year and the team said hey 7-9 isn't what we are trying to be. I think if we had gone 11-5 I would still be there. That's fine, life has its turns."

 

Starts at 33:20

https://www.podbean.com/eu/pb-se7y8-bc2dd9

 

 

Thanks. Yep. It plays to a tee what Mike Jones was saying at the time, if you go back to that thread in early January, Jones was optimistic that a deal would get done. Both parties seemed willing.

 

As for the guaranteed money, Jones suggested that Kirk’s side was willing to compromise a little but not much if the FO opened the negotiations with good will. But instead the negotiations got off to a rocky start that January, suggesting Kirk was given a hard time for the Giants game and Jones that same month switched from being positive to negative about a deal being reached and from there on stayed negative.

 

Bruce in his occasional public appearances that year said the Giants loss was “unacceptable” . The word ironically is the same one that Shanny said Dan loved to use.

 

As for what all this means to us, to each their own. Some are bothered by it, some not.   For me it is another example of Dan’s high strung and misguided emotions that precludes winning and for Bruce it doubles down why the dude isn’t the most popular with certain players, agents, etc.

 

Even if I didn’t like Kirk I’d feel the same way. As I’ve said before I couldn’t stand Zorn as a HC and was pleased he was let go but I hated how they played out that process, it was ugly.

 

For Kirk it wasn’t so much ugly IMO save for the idiotic press release but more about stubbornness, stupidity and poor negotiation skills. Trent’s situation while in many ways is different has the same type of stamp on it. It’s winning a battle to lose a war.

 

 

[Tsailand]

8 hours ago, Califan007 said:

Kirk's production was trending downward horribly, which is why he was benched. 

 

First 2 games - 5 TDs, 1 INT, 339 yds per game average. 6.2 TD%. 1.2 INT%.

 

Next 3 1/2 games - 5 TDs, 8 INTS, 295 yds per game average. 4.1 TD%. 6.5 INT% (!!!)

 

A smart team doesn't bench its most talented young QB because he gets turnover-happy for a few games.  Especially when he's still moving the ball well and reaching the end zone, for a team that has no rush offense and a ****ty defense.  The man was trying to put the team on his back to come back from multiple scores down in the 4th quarter.  Mostly, he failed.  But he was still the best player on the Redskins.

 

(Will Haskins make it to five TD passes on the year? Will he have even one 295-yard game?)

[Califan007 The Constipated]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Unbias said:

I'm calling BS on Kirk's production trending downward horribly. Let's look at his entire career: 

 

	Age	Tm	Pos	No.	G	GS	QBrec	Cmp	Att	Cmp%	Yds	TD	TD%	Int	Int%	1D	Lng	Y/A	AY/A	Y/C	Y/G	Rate	QBR	Sk	Yds	NY/A	ANY/A	Sk%	4QC	GWD	AV

 

 

I can't delete your chart lol...but anyway, my comment about him trending downward was about the 2014 season, so whatever happened before or after that season is not relevant to my comment. Also, kirk was only in his 3rd year with the Skins and what they knew about him was that he was terrible at protecting the ball:

 

Talk in Washington of benching Kirk Cousins for Colt McCoy

 

Kirk Cousins played so well in his first two games this season that coach Jay Gruden was open to the possibility of Cousins keeping the starting job in Washington even after Robert Griffin III returns. Cousins has played so badly since then that there’s talk in Washington of benching him for third-stringer Colt McCoy.

 

*****************

 

Kirk Cousins continues to throw interceptions at an alarming rate

 

Kirk Cousins threw two interceptions in Thursday night’s loss to the Giants, continuing an alarming trend that began with Cousins’s very first NFL game: He throws too many interceptions, and when he throws interceptions, Washington loses.

 

Cousins has eight career games with multiple interceptions, and Washington is 0-8 in those games. Cousins now has a whopping 23 career interceptions.

 

How bad is that? Consider that Cousins has the exact same number of career interceptions as Washington second-string quarterback Colt McCoy and Washington third-string quarterback/scout team safety Robert Griffin III. But McCoy has thrown his 23 interceptions in 831 career pass attempts, and Griffin has thrown his 23 interceptions in 1,063 career pass attempts. Cousins has thrown just 514 passes in his career.

 

When it comes to throwing interceptions, Cousins compares unfavorably to some of the worst quarterbacks in recent NFL history. Cousins’ career touchdown-interception ratio is almost exactly the same as that of Jaguars draft bust Blaine Gabbert: Cousins has thrown 21 career touchdown passes and 23 interceptions, while Gabbert has thrown 23 touchdown passes and 24 interceptions.

 

Cousins also throws interceptions at a worse rate than Raiders draft bust JaMarcus Russell: Cousins and Russell both have 23 career interceptions, but Russell threw 166 more passes than Cousins has thrown.

 

 

*****************

 

He has improved dramatically since 2014 season in that regard, though. But at the time of his benching, he couldn't be trusted to protect the ball, at all.

 

[Tsailand]

6 hours ago, Unbias said:

I'm calling BS on Kirk's production trending downward horribly.

 

He said Kirk trended down for three games, compared to the first two games of the season.  Technically true, and apparently that was enough to get him benched.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Tsailand said:

 

A smart team doesn't bench its most talented young QB because he gets turnover-happy for a few games.

 

 

It wasn't a few games, though. Kirk's INT issues were a part of his very being at that stage. Articles were being written about his abysmal INT rate back in 2014--ther was even one that recounted how commentators has been pointing out that Cousins reached a certain number of INTs in fewer pass attempts than anyone in like the last 25  years or some **** lol...it wasn't just a few weeks of bad throws. It was a historically bad run starting from his first pass attempt through his 2014 production.

And why the **** can't I edit my posts?!?!...🤬

[BleedBNG]

The Jets offered him a 3yr. $90M guaranteed. He turned it down for a better chance at grasping the trophy. Also, his agent wanted McCown to get a better deal in NY. Even if our deal was to surpass the Jets at around $93M ($1M more for each year), he STILL would have turned it down because he KNOWS the Redskins with jackass Allen will not do anything to improve "the culture." He knew just as much as we do that the Snyder/Allen combination is a total disaster. So if he felt the Jets were a team that were not going to get there soon, and lose $6M by picking the Vikes, what makes anyone think he would accept $1M more from the Skins? So, it's more of a "regret" (for those in Kirk's camp) of not signing him to a new 4 year contract in 2016 (instead of the tag). He would be finishing that contract after this year. I think the best he could help us this year is winning about 8 or 9 games. Playoffs? Looks like it so far in the NFCE. But the regret would lie more in still not having him here... NOT because of letting him go because he would not sign for that scenario.

[JSSkinz]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

For Kirk it wasn’t so much ugly IMO save for the idiotic press release but more about stubbornness, stupidity and poor negotiation skills. Trent’s situation while in many ways is different has the same type of stamp on it. It’s winning a battle to lose a war.

I think there's much more to this than Bruce being his typical incompetent self, Kirk uses Scott's name multiple times but never Bruce, he flat out says Scott wasn't ok with the contract they wanted.  My gut tells me the animosity was fueled by McCartney by selectively passing on data to Kirk because he saw a massive opportunity.  I can't blame McCartney from a business standpoint but from a fan standpoint, I hate what I think he did.  Of course, I can't prove that's what happened but what else could it have been that turned the tide and made this a pissing match between this FO and McCartney from the get go? Kirk didn't feel wanted?  Because they gave him a hard time about losing the Giants game? 

 

I don't buy any of that, these are grown men who have jobs to do and if they are unsuccessful then there is nothing wrong with criticism. Kirk has caught way more criticism in Minnesota than he ever did here.

 

When it comes to who did what my confusion is with who was the one negotiating.  Scott was the one directly negotiating with McCartney, right?  When did Bruce get involved, I'm assuming right after Scott was fired and that wasn't until March 2017.  So all of this bad juju was festering for 2 years but Bruce wasn't the one negotiating until the 2017 preseason or was he negotiating around Scott and undercutting him in the previous 2 years?

 

Why didn't Scott have better dialogue with McCartney, weren't they supposed to be friends?  How and why was Bruce even involved prior to the 2017 season?

 

When a team drafts you in the 4th round, develops you into a solid NFL QB and then starts you in place of their golden child (RG3) I don't think it's outrageous for them to believe they have earned some goodwill and expect the player to negotiate under fair terms.  The terms were never fair, a fully guaranteed 3 year deal for a guy who played 8 good games? I don't think the Skins FO is the only one in this league that would look at that as an insult.

 

How do you think Belichick, Roseman, Dorsey, Colbert, or Newsome would have reacted to Kirk wanting a fully guaranteed deal after playing consistently for only 8 games?

 

This is why I am antagonistic towards Kirk, everything that happened after that 2015 offseason seems meaningless because the damage was done on both sides.

We can say we should have picked up some draft picks but when?  After the 2015 season he didn't have any real value, at best maybe, and this is a big maybe he fetches a 3rd round pick.  Personally I don't believe Kirk approves a trade after the 2015 season, why would he? I know he said he would look at all options but that's exactly what I would say too.

 

Why go through all that grind and limit your options to only a select few teams who have draft capital when you can wait one more season and have access to any team that wants to sign you in free agency.  Why would his agent approve a trade at that point?  Doesn't that seem counterproductive to their end goal?

 

 

[Veryoldschool]

I'm done with this thread these are my parting words.  If you are a real Skins fan and don't regret losing the QB that elevated a 3 & 4 win team to a .500 team that has reverted to a sewer-dwelling team in his absence you either intensely and irrationally hate Cousins, don't have any real understanding of the game, are deeply emotionally invested in an indefensible negative position about him, entertain some ludicrous fantasy that an owner who can't recognize a top 10 franchise QB on his own roster will somehow pick one in the draft and start winning or some combination of these or other stupid things.  The plain and irrefutable truth is Cousins' performance and the demise of the Skins in his absence have totally debunked all the silly and petty complaints about him.  In any case, I'm not going to waste any more time or pixels trying to enlighten the ridiculous Kirk refuseniks who I believe know they are wrong but simply won't admit it to themselves or admit it to the rest of us.

[Skinsinparadise]

43 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

I think there's much more to this than Bruce being his typical incompetent self, Kirk uses Scott's name multiple times but never Bruce,

 

That wasn't Kirk and McCartney's only interview on the contract or for that matter only one where they were relaxed talking about it.  I sadly could get a PHD on the Kirk contract.  I watched everything I could and listened to everything back then and since.   You seem very focused on that specific podcast.  But that podcast fits perfectly fine with all the other narratives.

 

Kirk has talked about Bruce before in the context of the contract.  Scot was gone for most of the 2017 negotiation when it went awry.  Scot flat out said (his own words no speculation) that once they tagged Kirk the 2nd time you had to find a way to bring him back versus letting him go.   I met Scot and my overriding impression of him is he's mega honest.  So I have zero doubt he meant exactly what he said. 

 

Also according to Scot's pal, Jason Cole, in early 2017 Scot wanted to trade him.  Keim flat out said people in the building wanted to trade Kirk but Bruce still thought they could get a deal done. 

 

43 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

 

When it comes to who did what my confusion is with who was the one negotiating. 

 

Schaffer the whole time.  People who were close to Kirk said multiple times that Kirk and his camp had no issue with Schaffer or Scot on a personal basis. The word "personal" being the operative word.  The idea that Kirk knew Scot wasn't totally convinced and he had to convince him wasn't an obscure secret that Kirk revealed finally on that podcast.  We all know it was in the open -- that drove the "how do you like me now" comment. 

 

IMO you are stuck too much in the 2016 part of the contract and not enough in 2017 when everyone who covered the negotiation said it went awry. 

 

The dude that they didn't like personally because of how they were treated -- according to Kirk's camp was Bruce.  Grant Paulsen, Kirk's pal, and I witnessed them paling around first hand at Kirk's QB camp said as recent as last week that he wanted out because of Bruce.  Kirk would never say that publicly because that's not his style and some who know him said he genuinely wasn't bitter in the end because he deeply feels everything happens for a reason.  So when he talks without malice i bet he has none -- now.  

 

If you follow the whole Trent thing it's a similar story.  Heck Standig wrote today that the only way Trent returns is if Bruce is fired.  Trent thought that Bruce was a jerk for how he handled the behind the scenes stuff involving him.  Kirk's people said ditto.  I even shared some of those stories which Paulsen shared on air.  But I don't feel like doing it here again.  I got the feeling that your mind is made up no matter what I say.  And that's cool.  It's the same for me.  I've heard enough to be confident enough about what put off Kirk's camp including factoring that podcast.  So to each their own. 😀

 

 

43 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

 

Kirk has caught way more criticism in Minnesota than he ever did here.

 

 

He had a big contract to live up in year 1 and he didn't live up to it.    At the moment he's living up to it big time right now, twitter now is littered with Minny fans worshipping Kirk and pushing him for MVP.   I bet they'd trade places with us now in heartbeat -- not.  😀  Like you I wasn't a big Alex guy year 1 but I said about him -- give him another year and I'd expect him to approve in the new system.  That same thought in my book applied to Kirk.  Seems to be working for Kirk. 

 

43 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

 

 

Why didn't Scott have better dialogue with McCartney, weren't they supposed to be friends?  How and why was Bruce even involved prior to the 2017 season?

 

 

Bruce is the boss. Scot worked for Bruce not the other way around.  And Bruce was in charge of the money.  Even before the Scot-Bruce riff went public -- reporters would say Bruce controls the money, the cap, all of that so that still makes him more powerful than Scot.  Scot was in the end basically what Kyle Smith is now coupled with Santos -- he was the college and pro scout mostly. 

 

43 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

 

This is why I am antagonistic towards Kirk, everything that happened after that 2015 offseason seems meaningless because the damage was done on both sides.

 

 

I disagree but I can see your point of view if Bruce ever gave Kirk a legitimate offer which he never did.  Going back to my house analogy, I can't make fun of the seller turning down a lucrative offer from me unless I actually gave a lucrative offer.     If I am McCartney I'd tell the Redskins to F-off based on those offers.  But they were supposedly nicer than that and simply didn't counter offer the low ball offer.  I posted eons ago an article from an agent about why he doesn't counter low ball offers.  I don't feel like repeating their arguments but I'll just say Bruce's offer in 2017 didn't deserve a counter offer.  And sorry Scot was gone at the time of the Spring offer that brought the wacky press release in tandem. We can't put that on him.

 

43 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

We can say we should have picked up some draft picks but when?  After the 2015 season he didn't have any real value, at best maybe, and this is a big maybe he fetches a 3rd round pick.  Personally I don't believe Kirk approves a trade after the 2015 season, why would he? I know he said he would look at all options but that's exactly what I would say too.

 

 

 

Early 2017.  That's when Scot wanted to trade him according to Cole.  Also according to Keim other people in that building wanted to do the same but Bruce disagreed.

 

43 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

Why would his agent approve a trade at that point?  Doesn't that seem counterproductive to their end goal?

 

 

It's not up to his agent to approve, he'd have no choice.   Sheehan heard that SF was willing to give up picks for Kirk.  they had plenty of cap room.  Kirk supposedly loves Kyle.  Yeah Bruce-Dan supposedly hates Kyle and that likely would have precluded it but that's this team's dysfunction -- I am not going to praise them for their own weird neurosis which precludes winning.  

[Stadium-Armory]

Yes, but only because what would have been the upside to letting him go, doesn't apply to us because we are poorly managed. Not overpaying players is only smart, when you know what to do with the money you save. 

[JSSkinz]

33 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

IMO you are stuck too much in the 2016

Because that seems to be where everything fell apart, the longer each side postures the more likely that someone will start to take it personally, sometimes both sides.

 

33 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I disagree but I can see your point of view if Bruce ever gave Kirk a legitimate offer which he never did.

But who was Kirk Cousins back then?  It's like the new employee who does really well for the first 6 months and then expects perks or a raise as if she or he were a consistent producer over an extended period of time.  Maybe I'm jaded because I have dealt with that scenario several times over the years and it's a pet peeve.

 

Kirk was a QB still trying to find himself, he has 8 good games under his belt, even if the initial offer was low who cares, you were a backup 12 months ago so why would you think you are now negotiating as if you were a top tier QB?  Seems pretty entitled to me, one of the things that really annoys me about this situation.

 

43 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Sheehan heard that SF was willing to give up picks for Kirk.

That would be a perfect trade for Kirk, its hard to believe Lynch would give up that kind of draft capital when you can wait until the end of the season.  I would understand needing to do that if you felt you could lose the player to another team in free agency but if Kirk loved Shanny then what's the risk when the player is in control and he wants to be part of your team?  I'm sure in hindsight San Fran is happy, they only gave up a 2nd rounder to get Jimmy and they are one of the better teams in the NFL right now.  I know that's not relative to the debate but it's interesting.

 

53 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

It's not up to his agent to approve, he'd have no choice.

I understand the player makes the decision but all dialogue passes through the agent so they decide what information makes it to the player.  Kirk loves his agent, you heard him talk about it several times in his various interviews.  His agent is the one who said to Kirk after the 2015 season that "we aren't signing a contract with the Redskins unless its a fully guaranteed 3 year deal" so to think he didn't have control over the process seems a bit naive.

 

I really don't believe this whole Kirk saga was as cookie cutter as some make it seem, you have a player who sits the bench for the better portion of 3 years, starts the last year of his contract and doesn't play particularly well but then has a very good 2nd half of the season and finishes with a division title.

 

And then he wants a fully guaranteed 3 year deal?  

[CjSuAvE22]

43 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

Because that seems to be where everything fell apart, the longer each side postures the more likely that someone will start to take it personally, sometimes both sides.

 

But who was Kirk Cousins back then?  It's like the new employee who does really well for the first 6 months and then expects perks or a raise as if she or he were a consistent producer over an extended period of time.  Maybe I'm jaded because I have dealt with that scenario several times over the years and it's a pet peeve.

 

Kirk was a QB still trying to find himself, he has 8 good games under his belt, even if the initial offer was low who cares, you were a backup 12 months ago so why would you think you are now negotiating 

And then he wants a fully guaranteed 3 year deal?  

Ill tell you for the last time, no qb on Cousins level is gonna get anything less than 3 years guaranteed...we are paying smith 3 years guaranteed  outta 4 and cousins is much better...

[wit33]

46 minutes ago, CjSuAvE22 said:

Ill tell you for the last time, no qb on Cousins level is gonna get anything less than 3 years guaranteed...we are paying smith 3 years guaranteed  outta 4 and cousins is much better...

Three years guaranteed on a 5 year deal is muuuuuch different than a 3 year guaranteed deal. I’m not even talking just Smith versus Cousins, this is true for any deal. The player has leverage in the beginning of long term deals, then it shifts to the team (in the more traditional type deals). 
 

 

[Malapropismic Depository]

I do not regret letting Cousins go, because I never, ever once in my entire life let Cousins go.