Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread

[metalskins]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.c5f64dafa5a0

Interesting tidbit from this writer is that he feels one of the scenarios is that the Redskins decline to match another team's offer on Cousins, but are compensated with two first round draft picks. I did not think the Redskins valued Cousins high enough to warrant two first round picks.

This article seems to believe that we franchise him again at 24 million, which means he walks in 2018 because i believe you can not use the tag three consecutive times in a row.

It's the nature of how the nonexclusive tag works. It doesn't have to be two number one picks though. The team that has the tagged player can negotiate a deal where it might be some lower draft picks and a trade or something like that. For instance, let's say that now that the Chargers are moving to LA, Phillip Rivers may not want to play in LA (he's stated such before from what I've read.) Let's say he demands to be traded to another team. Could be a scenario where the Redskins are willing to not match an offer that the Chargers would put in for Kirk Cousins and in exchange, the Redskins get Phillip Rivers and a couple 3rd round picks. It would be a win-win situation. The Redskins would get a quarterback who is a proven franchise quarterback, and some draft picks, Chargers would get a potential franchise quarterback who wants to play for any team willing to pay for him. It doesn't have to automatically be two number one picks with the nonexclusive tag.

Not saying this is likely to happen, but honestly, I've felt that if the Redskins cut Cousins loose, it would only be in a situation where they land an established franchise quarterback who could essentially pick up from where Cousins left it, keep the trajectory heading upward for the Redskins rebuild, and allow Scot McCloughan to continue focusing on building the defense. Phillip Rivers still has several good years left in him, and I think he's wasting his career with the Chargers. Having said that, I don't see this scenario being likely at all, but just to give you an example of how the nonexclusive tag could work. I'm all in favor of keeping Cousins as I think he has potential of being a franchise quarterback for several years to come. And yes, you can tag a quarterback three years in a row, with that third year, he receivers a 44% raise over the cap number of the previous year. You can't tag a non-quarterback three years in a row though.

[SolidSnake84]

Originally Posted by metalskins

It's the nature of how the nonexclusive tag works. It doesn't have to be two number one picks though. The team that has the tagged player can negotiate a deal where it might be some lower draft picks and a trade or something like that. For instance, let's say that now that the Chargers are moving to LA, Phillip Rivers may not want to play in LA (he's stated such before from what I've read.) Let's say he demands to be traded to another team. Could be a scenario where the Redskins are willing to not match an offer that the Chargers would put in for Kirk Cousins and in exchange, the Redskins get Phillip Rivers and a couple 3rd round picks. It would be a win-win situation. The Redskins would get a quarterback who is a proven franchise quarterback, and some draft picks, Chargers would get a potential franchise quarterback who wants to play for any team willing to pay for him. It doesn't have to automatically be two number one picks with the nonexclusive tag.

Not saying this is likely to happen, but honestly, I've felt that if the Redskins cut Cousins loose, it would only be in a situation where they land an established franchise quarterback who could essentially pick up from where Cousins left it, keep the trajectory heading upward for the Redskins rebuild, and allow Scot McCloughan to continue focusing on building the defense. Phillip Rivers still has several good years left in him, and I think he's wasting his career with the Chargers. Having said that, I don't see this scenario being likely at all, but just to give you an example of how the nonexclusive tag could work. I'm all in favor of keeping Cousins as I think he has potential of being a franchise quarterback for several years to come. And yes, you can tag a quarterback three years in a row, with that third year, he receivers a 44% raise over the cap number of the previous year. You can't tag a non-quarterback three years in a row though.

Thanks for explaining that. I still think it's silly that our main issue with Cousins is that we don't want to pay him, but yet they are okay with (continuing) to tag him, potentially two more times, which means he only gets paid by us more and more on one year deals. Crazy, to me. You tag him again this year because you have no replacement option, and then next year he starts his negotiations at 34 million....

[metalskins]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

Thanks for explaining that. I still think it's silly that our main issue with Cousins is that we don't want to pay him, but yet they are okay with (continuing) to tag him, potentially two more times, which means he only gets paid by us more and more on one year deals. Crazy, to me. You tag him again this year because you have no replacement option, and then next year he starts his negotiations at 34 million....

It's one of those situations where you couldn't really predict the future. Last year, had the Redskins decided to be aggressive in getting a long term deal done, it would have cost less, but they would have essentially been the ones gambling on one half of a good season. Had this year proven that the latter half of 2015 was all smoke and mirrors, you're now stuck with a QB (ala' Brock Osweiler) who will have set you back because he isn't as advertised.

Now, the Redskins are free to start negotiating with Cousins now, but unless they offer him exactly what he wants, it's going to be a fruitless negotiation. Even if the Redskins do offer Cousins exactly what he's asking for, then his agent is just going to say, that he wants to see if other teams are willing to beat that offer. The Redskins want to tag Cousins to avoid a bidding war. The only question is, nonexclusive tag verses exclusive.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

Thanks for explaining that. I still think it's silly that our main issue with Cousins is that we don't want to pay him, but yet they are okay with (continuing) to tag him, potentially two more times, which means he only gets paid by us more and more on one year deals. Crazy, to me. You tag him again this year because you have no replacement option, and then next year he starts his negotiations at 34 million....

Can you show any public statement by the Redskins that says they don't want to pay him? Not anonymous sources, or even beat writers, an official statement.