Serious Question: Do you regret letting Cousins go?

[Taylor 36]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

No, because Alex injury is career threatening with an out after 3 years.  If Kirk got hurt Vikings would be in hook for entire contract, every single dime.  That's why no one does that in the NFL.

 

Guess what; Kirk's contract is only a three year deal.  The Vikings can be 100% free of paying him, if they want, at the same time the Redskins can get out from under the Alex Smith deal.  So, in reality, it doesn't matter that Cousins' contract was fully guaranteed while Smith's wasn't.  Both teams are on the hook for the same amount of time, with very little difference in pay, in football terms.  But, one team has a QB that is actually playing for them and winning games and has them in the thick of a playoff berth, while also being in MVP conversations; the other team has the exact opposite.  

10 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said:

You guys really need to get over Kirk. He’s gone and not coming back.

 

 

You really need to get over your superiority complex telling everyone on this board what they need to do and what they shouldn't discuss.  If you have a problem with the topic and discussion, stay out of the thread.

[Renegade7]

10 minutes ago, Taylor 36 said:

Guess what; Kirk's contract is only a three year deal.  The Vikings can be 100% free of paying him, if they want, at the same time the Redskins can get out from under the Alex Smith deal.  So, in reality, it doesn't matter that Cousins' contract was fully guaranteed while Smith's wasn't.  Both teams are on the hook for the same amount of time, with very little difference in pay, in football terms.  But, one team has a QB that is actually playing for them and winning games and has them in the thick of a playoff berth, while also being in MVP conversations; the other team has the exact opposite.  

 

If you want to look at the years, as a factor to negate my point, that's like saying I'm cool with the Alex Smith contract.  I'm not.  And your point makes it seem like it doesnt matter, but you only saying that because of the stupid deal we gave Alex.  Being on the hook for him is bad, if the same happened to Kirk in Minnesota how would that be any better?  That was a helluva risk they took giving him a fully guaranteed contract, some say they would do it, I wouldnt of, not at that time, nor do I believe we would've taken it if we offered it.

 

For real, saying you wouldnt of resigned Cousins doesnt mean I approved of our alternative plan to go after Alex.  It remains to be seen what comes from Haskins, even though many have written him off, I havent yet. Reserve the right to be wrong about him.

[Taylor 36]

5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

If you want to look at the years, as a factor to negate my point, that's like saying I'm cool with the Alex Smith contract.  I'm not.  And your point makes it seem like it doesnt matter, but you only saying that because of the stupid deal we gave Alex.  Being on the hook for him is bad, if the same happened to Kirk in Minnesota how would that be any better?  That was a helluva risk they took giving him a fully guaranteed contract, some say they would do it, I wouldnt of, not at that time, nor do I believe we would've taken it if we offered it.

 

For real, saying you wouldnt of resigned Cousins doesnt mean I approved of our alternative plan to go after Alex.  It remains to be seen what comes from Haskins, even though many have written him off, I havent yet. Reserve the right to be wrong about him.

I may have mistaken the point you were trying to make.  I read your earlier post as you saying the Vikings were in a bad position because of Kirk's guaranteed contract for three years, and I was pointing out that the Redskins are no better off with Alex's contract, even though it wasn't fully guaranteed (though, I think we are in a much worse position with the contract we gave Alex, even if he was healthy).  If Kirk got hurt this weekend and couldn't play another down for the Vikes for the remainder of his contract, the Vikes wouldn't be worse off than the Redskins, so we do agree there.

 

It is a helluva risk to offer any big contract in the NFL, and I get why teams and fans are wary of offering up big contracts with a lot of, never mind full guarantees.  But, that's why it is so important to do a full assessment of the player and the risk beforehand.  And, with the contract the Redskins gave to Alex, and older and inferior QB, compared to what they could have given Cousins to stay (before Bruce totally screwed the pooch to the point that Cousins was not returning with him still in the FO), it is obvious that they didn't assess anything other than their own egos and how to stroke them. (I'm not saying that you are/were on board with their lunacy, just making my position clear).

[Darrell Green Fan]

10 hours ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

As for Kirk's deal, haven't 7 or 8 players gotten even richer deals since he signed his?  Cousins is really good and it would have been much easier to build around him than crash and burn and hope to find another Top 10 franchise QB and build around him.

 

 

 

This was a big part of my argument for defending that deal he signed.  It was clear to me that  in a few years that contract won't look so bad when compared to other deals that will be signed in the future.   

[Skinsinparadise]

 

A. Alex Smith got 3.5 years guaranteed in the contract.  Bruce wouldn't give Kirk over 2 years guaranteed.  Kirk wanted 3 years guaranteed.

B. Kirk was 29 who has been durable as heck.  Alex has been fairly durable but has had more injuries than Kirk.  He was a 34 year old QB who relied a bit on his legs.

C.  Since Alex was about to turn 34.  So the out with him on the contract would be when he hit 37.  That's not exactly playing the odds well.

D. The idea that the Alex extension might burn the Redskins got some play when it went down but got lost in the sauce thanks to the hoopla of the trade

E.  We are now paying more money at QB than every team (including the Vikings) but one.

F. We have one of the worst teams in the NFL and certainly one of the worst passing games.

 

The idea of good riddance Kirk and well played Bruce-Dan, to me is really wild but to each their own. And I'd say I'd add the well played part about Bruce-Dan is if I felt the team was better with him off the roster and leading the Vikings and if so I wouldn't have too much beef with Bruce-Dan on that front.  Now, that's not even close to how I feel about it.

 

The only argument to me that has some legs to Kirk is how does he finish the season?  I got some hesitation on that front.   He has three defenses that have given him trouble up next including GB   That Preston Smith dude could give any QB trouble, imagine if we had a pass rusher like him? 😀

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

7 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

For real, saying you wouldnt of resigned Cousins doesnt mean I approved of our alternative plan to go after Alex.  It remains to be seen what comes from Haskins, even though many have written him off, I havent yet. Reserve the right to be wrong about him.

 

I hated the Alex Smith deal when it happened.  Even before it happened I talked about it as worse case scenario.   That wasn't me picking on Alex but the idea of trading some youth for a 34 year old QB who relied on his legs some for a team that wasn't IMO ready to make a big climb.  I gather Dan loves those types of QBs because it was similar with McNabb and Brunell.   Similar age QBs who relied some on their legs. 

 

The only way dumping Kirk to me works is if Haskins succeeds because at least at some point you benefit from the money saved.   Right now they are wildly getting burned at both turns -- burned on money and burned on the play at QB.  At this given time IMO their move with Kirk is an epic debacle because you can't just ignore what they did to replace him.  People can blame it on bad luck or whatever but it doesn't matter, it's played out poorly.  We can whine about 27-28 million yet we are paying over 30 for the mostly garbage QB play we have now.  

 

Now that narrative can change.  And agree it would have to be Haskins.    It would be 3 years of Haskins on a rookie contract as opposed to the normal 5 because Alex's contract among others is eating the cap until then. 

[SkinsFTW]

9 hours ago, CjSuAvE22 said:

I think griffins demise goes hand in hand with the low opinion on cousins for a lotta fans, not sure why but thats how it is..

 

When Cousins started in 2015 was when he should have been signed for at least 2-3 more years. Some fans here were saying it (and getting clowned for saying it) and then later we hear that Scot wanted it done then too.

 

The funny thing I remember during that season when Kirk started playing decent after a few games was that some of the KC haters started talking about how if he keeps playing like that he'd end up being paid like 7+ Mil a year by some team and there was no way he was worth that. Then as the season progressed that number kept going up until they realized that KC was going to get paid at least 12-14M (which was ridiculous because RG3 was supposed to be getting that money), then even more once Osweiler signed for 18M.

 

If they had signed KC before that he'd probably have taken 15-16M a year. There was 0 reason to not get it done before the Osweiler deal or trade him for at minimum a first rounder.

[Skinsinparadise]

10 minutes ago, SkinsFTW said:

 

If they had signed KC before that he'd probably have taken 15-16M a year. There was 0 reason to not get it done before the Osweiler deal or trade him for at minimum a first rounder.

 

To play off of that point, some say when it comes to how they operated at different times as to the Kirk contract -- well how would they know, then? Why not wait?  Since we didn't know this or that for sure at the time.  I forgot where I read it but there was a good read about how strong front office's operate and part of the point was the good ones know how to evaluate their own players quickly and made decisions about their worth and secure their worth before the market does get expensive for them. It's part of the point of managing your own resources and the cap.

 

Some say here well they wouldn't know if Kirk was the guy at that given time so why give him 19 million then, etc.  And heck we shouldn't know.  But THEY should.  Kirk is in that building.  They are dealing with him all the time.  They watch his practices, know his work habits. etc.  It's their job to do projections.  As an example, the Eagles are famous for locking up their young players early. 

 

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

9 hours ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

You didn't want to extend Cousins after 2015?   After being that wrong in 2015 why do you rely on your poor judgement now?  You were clearly wrong then and even now you refuse to grasp the obvious, Cousins is really good.    I don't know if you are one of the broken hearted Griffin fans but it doesn't matter you're a poor judge of QB talent, maybe you have a good handle on other parts of the game but clueless about QBs.

 

I think a lot of people still had their doubts about Kirk after 2015. I know I did.  At that point he had proven very little, many QBs have one good season and then regressed. Remember the Jets fans wearing sumbreroes  to show their love for Sanchez?  At one point in time the Browns thought they had found their guy in Derek Anderson after one great season, of course there is Mark Rypien as well. 

[JSSkinz]

1 hour ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

 

 

1

1 hour ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

It was clear to me that  in a few years that contract won't look so bad when compared to other deals that will be signed in the future.

No doubt market value goes up and it's been skyrocketing as of late but the only security the buyer has is if they can get a long term commitment to lock in today's price for the future.  That's the give and the take, the player and franchise have long term security and the player signs for what they believe is a fair amount.

 

A 3 year deal does none of that, the Vikes only have 1 year left on Kirk's contract after this season so they didn't beat the system, actually if Kirk plays well (meaningful wins not stats) then they will have some pressure to redo his deal this offseason or go down the rabbit hole we went down with Kirk.

 

There's gonna be some compelling football as we head into the final quarter of the season.

[Rex Tomb]

People seem to forget that Cousins's own WRs in Diggs and Thielen were calling him out for not taking chances with the ball.  As few as six weeks ago, he was getting crushed by the Minnesota media:

http://m.startribune.com/what-s-wrong-with-kirk-cousins-vikings-better-find-out-fast/562289402/

 

The guy has not defeated a winning team yet this season (the Cowboys hardly qualify)

[JSSkinz]

16 minutes ago, SkinsFTW said:

When Cousins started in 2015 was when he should have been signed for at least 2-3 more years. Some fans here were saying it

Who was saying that?  See I remember all the people that still wanted RG3 to play, I also remember everyone saying Kirk was Rex junior.  

 

He had just got benched after 8 games or so in 2014 and you think the team should have signed him to $15 - $16M per year?  That wasn't chump change for a QB 5 years ago.

 

You can seriously say you would have done that? 

[CjSuAvE22]

1 hour ago, JSSkinz said:

Who was saying that?  See I remember all the people that still wanted RG3 to play, I also remember everyone saying Kirk was Rex junior.  

 

He had just got benched after 8 games or so in 2014 and you think the team should have signed him to $15 - $16M per year?  That wasn't chump change for a QB 5 years ago.

 

You can seriously say you would have done that? 

Hes talking about after the 2015 season where he had 29 tds 11 ints and 4200 yards passing anyone with some football knowledge knew then that hes capable of playing football in grudens system, the point is we didnt extend him then amd we are paying for it now how many touchdowns do we have offensively?? Pathetic if you honestly believe he ahouldnt have been extended after 2015 you along with bruce and dan are 100 percent dead wrong...the team could have been built around an 18 million a year qb...but this front office had no vision in building a team they wanted nfc east championships right away Griff gave them that but cousins did not so they had to see more from him and end up using him as a scapegoat when the overall talent level of the team was atrocious....

[JSSkinz]

54 minutes ago, CjSuAvE22 said:

Hes talking about after the 2015 season

That makes no sense, it's well known we offered him $15.5M per year after 2015 and then Kirks team countered closer to $20M which was the franchise tag.  Then we later learned that Kirk and his agent were only interested in signing a 3 year fully guaranteed deal after 2015.

 

1 hour ago, CjSuAvE22 said:

Pathetic if you honestly believe he ahouldnt have been extended after 2015 you along with bruce and dan are 100 percent dead wrong

Were you around when we debated this for months back in 2017?   I'll make this quick.

 

I wouldn't have given him a fully guaranteed 3 year deal after the 2015 season, if you're saying that was a no brainer move then you and I have different ideas on how to spend money and your way (IMO) is reckless and would not be a consideration by any good GM in the NFL.  You don't hand out fully guaranteed contracts or even top money to any player who put together 8 games which were a mix of good, great, and solid with the first 8 games of the 2015 season being meh and there was past history of turnovers and inconsistent play (2014 season).

 

The risk is too high in that specific scenario and there was no data to back up that the last 8 games of the 2015 season were going to be indicative of Kirks future as a QB.  Yes, he was trending upward but with a small sample size of 8 games.

 

Do I wish we had signed Kirk long term after 2015?  Yes, but not fully guaranteed for 3 years.  I think a 5 year deal with the first 3 guaranteed would have been acceptable.  At least then we would have some time to focus on building the rest of the team and we would understand how to structure future contracts around Kirks deal.

 

If we had signed him to that fully guaranteed deal his contract would have been expired as of last season, what would he have done here in that time?

 

We had no WR's, no real RB until AP got here last year and Reed has been hurt forever.  D Jax and Garcon weren't going to be affordable (See cap space available after the 2016 season, plus neither player has done anything since they left) So what would us signing him have done besides setting him up for his next contract with a good team where he can win, we were not and still aren't that team.

 

[ananoman]

13 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

 

Not sure what this means, I know jus because Cousins was best QB we had this century wasnt saying much when you looked at his competition.  Franchises like the Ravens destroyed themselves overpaying their QBs, I didnt want that to be us.

 

  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.......

[Fat Stupid Loser]

4 hours ago, Rex Tomb said:

People seem to forget that Cousins's own WRs in Diggs and Thielen were calling him out for not taking chances with the ball.  As few as six weeks ago, he was getting crushed by the Minnesota media:

http://m.startribune.com/what-s-wrong-with-kirk-cousins-vikings-better-find-out-fast/562289402/

 

The guy has not defeated a winning team yet this season (the Cowboys hardly qualify)

That was Zim managing the offense. After the complaints, he turned to OC loose and now they are very balanced.

[Renegade7]

16 minutes 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.......

 

I'm going to finish cooking thanksgiving and get to this another day.

 

The contract Flacco got caused the total dismantling of that team he won a super bowl with and they didnt make the playoffs 4 out of the next 5 years.  That's what I was talking about, this direct threat of giving quarterbacks "what they are worth" even if they arent elite and not being able to put a team around them to compensate for them not being elite.  I stand by that stance and it's still a direct threat to the NFL in general.

[Veryoldschool]

 

 

 

 

 

3

13 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Dont be disrespectful because you dont agree with me on extending him or giving him what the Vikings did.  Did you want to extend him after 2015?  Did you want to give him the Vikings contract the year he left? You brought up he turned down the Jets, what makes you think he wouldnt of told us the same?  I'm not a bitter Griffin fan, this is such a message board way of approaching this conversation. 

 

Yes, I wanted to extend him in 2015 and said so repeatedly on this board.  It was obvious to me he was the answer in 2015 because I liked him all along and told people Cousins would beat out Griffin in 2012 before Griffin got hurt.

 

13 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Not sure what this means, I know jus because Cousins was best QB we had this century wasnt saying much when you looked at his competition.  Franchises like the Ravens destroyed themselves overpaying their QBs, I didnt want that to be us.

 

The Skins are paying more for QBs than the Vikings so who is overpaying?

[Skinsinparadise]

4 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

I think a lot of people still had their doubts about Kirk after 2015. I know I did.  At that point he had proven very little, many QBs have one good season and then regressed. Remember the Jets fans wearing sumbreroes  to show their love for Sanchez?  At one point in time the Browns thought they had found their guy in Derek Anderson after one great season, of course there is Mark Rypien as well. 

 

Yeah but it shouldn't be us from our couch figuring it out.   I agree we'd have no way to know.  I recall reading that Sanchez was regarded by some there as someone who enjoyed celebrity and not so much working to be a good QB.   So yeah they would have some internal view that the movie might not end up that well.

 

Shanny talked about not knowing how Kirk or any QB would be when drafted until he had them in the building.  And with Kirk, he saw how hard he worked at it and thought that would be his ticket and thought he was a franchise QB.   Shanny might be a bit pollyana about Kirk but the dude has been around a lot of QBs.  I'd have factored his opinion some especially he was the one who drafted him and knew what he liked about him from the outset.  I read a book from Arians about all the QBs he had in his building and the key trait he mentioned along with leadership, accuracy/throwing with anticipation was work ethic.   And he especially factored work ethic as to future success especially if the dude was accurate. 

 

IMO its the FO's job to judge their own players in a much better way than any dude here could.  I got some employees working for me.  I think I know them pretty well including their potential and much better than anyone outside my company could.    

 

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/01/11/report-jets-players-rip-lazy-sanchez-call-for-manning-trade/

NEW YORK (WFAN) — With offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer gone, it’s Mark Sanchez’s turn to man the Jets’ hot seat.

According to a report from Manish Mehta of the New York Daily News, several Jets players are unhappy with the play and work ethic of their quarterback. It’s gotten to the point, Mehta reports, that there’s a growing call within the organization — and in the locker room — for New York to acquire a veteran quarterback to “push” Sanchez.

[Veryoldschool]

11 hours ago, JSSkinz said:

Who was saying that?  See I remember all the people that still wanted RG3 to play, I also remember everyone saying Kirk was Rex junior.  

 

He had just got benched after 8 games or so in 2014 and you think the team should have signed him to $15 - $16M per year?  That wasn't chump change for a QB 5 years ago.

 

You can seriously say you would have done that? 

 

Yes, I absolutely wanted that in 2015 and I told people in 2012 after watching Cousins play that he would surpass Griffin, I didn't expect it to happen in Washington but I knew it would happen.  He's got the goods.

[The Hangman- C_Hanburger]

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

[CjSuAvE22]

14 minutes 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

So bruce allen knows we are pissed at his terrible decisions in the tailgate it will be beat down to nothing this clown has taken multiple positions of strength and decimated them and the last straw should have been screwing up cousins

[JSSkinz]

36 minutes 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

This team has become so bad that we need threads about other teams players to keep the stadium alive, at least until we get to the offseason.  Just my opinion.

[Skinsinparadise]

The reason why IMO this thread is relevant is this season has gone into the crapper.  And Dan-Bruce need to take responsibility for their decisions.   This being just one of them but a big one.  I don't fault people here for getting it wrong about Kirk.  It's football.  We are not paid to get predictions right.  I get some right and get some wrong myself and it evens out.  So I am not gloating about anything.  I recall the loud Kirk critics well considering I was among a group of people who debated them all the time. 

 

Some of them resent me for it through this day and reminded me about it when I was made fun of a little but on another thread when he had a couple of bad games early this season and I got bashed for it from time to time by some of those same people on the Bruce thread.  😀   The idea that none of us would have a clue back then that Kirk was worth bringing back is a bit silly IMO because clearly some of us were on it. 

 

That's why that thread was so heated.  It wasn't because it was a consensus that Kirk wasn't worth bringing back and the FO played it well. From what I recall it was closer to a 50-50 divided and polarized thread opinion wise.  My point here isn't to relive that but to say I don't think it was that much of a rocket science decision where the poor FO naturally should have been befuddled about.   Even McCloughan who was brought up here wasn't confounded that long judging by reports and his own words.  In early 2017, he wanted to trade him. After the tag happened in 2017, he said you got to find a way now to keep him.  

 

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.

 

My only question is does it last?  If it does.  IMO Kirk is a great QB.  Like I said on the Kirk thread I'd vacillate between good to great.  I am leaning great but want to see him finish.   Considering who he's up against, I'd assume at least one bad game or so will be in that mix.  That's OK.  But IMO he must get them into the playoffs.   I don't mean that in the context of it being justified of letting him go, I mean it purely for Kirk's reputation around the league to be maintained as a slam dunk top 10 QB.  

 

 

 

Imagine if the dude ever played with an O line who can pass protect?

 

 

 

[Tsailand]

On 11/28/2019 at 8:18 AM, JSSkinz said:

He had just got benched after 8 games or so in 2014

 

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).