Is Allen Justified If No One Overpays for Cousins

[Ruhskins]

I think this whole argument of Cousins getting paid or not is irrelevant because of his lack of interest in being part of the team.

Cousins gave up the security of a long term contract and guaranteed money because he did not want to be here. Yes, he got 40+ million dollar in franchise money, but all of that could have easily gone away with injury.

So as a team, I don't know how the Redskins could have negotiated with a player that doesn't care about guaranteed money orthe security of a long term contract (two of the biggest bargaining chips) and was willing to risk injury for two seasons to get what he wanted.

To me, the only mistake the team did was to keep him around after the first franchise tag. They should have traded him last offseason.

Kirk is a good quarterback and I'm sure he'll play well for a team where he wants to be; and I'm sure he's going to get his money. But he didn't want to play here and only did enough to keep good stats.

[MTK]

Writers don’t pay QBs so ultimately who cares what articles say.

[Dan73]

Originally Posted by MTK

Writers don’t pay QBs so ultimately who cares what articles say.

Some writers speculate others can end up being tools for a team or agent.

So what happens if these writers are being used to change fans views before free agency.

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

[metalskins]

Originally Posted by Dan73

Some writers speculate others can end up being tools for a team or agent.

So what happens if these writers are being used to change fans views before free agency.

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

That's often what happens. It's naive to think the media isn't used to sway opinions. I mean, it's used in the political realm, why would it not be used in sports?

[mooby]

Was Osweiler worth it? The market speaks for itself. Never seen any article that decided a qb's worth to any team.

[MTK]

Sorry Kirk, we can’t go above $20m per year, didn’t you see that NFL.com article??

[Dan73]

Originally Posted by MTK

Sorry Kirk, we can’t go above $20m per year, didn’t you see that NFL.com article??

You don't think his agent wouldn't pull out articles or demand from other cities to try and leverage up an offer?

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Dan73

You don't think his agent wouldn't pull out articles or demand from other cities to try and leverage up an offer?

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

You really think both sides are comparing online articles in contract negotiations??

[Dan73]

Originally Posted by MTK

You really think both sides are comparing online articles in contract negotiations??

I have no doubt the court of public opinion is used in negotiations. Having been in negotiations I have seen it used in arguments. Public perception is important when you desire having a paying public on your side.

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

[CRedskinsRule]

If this is a KC thread, lets close it and let the final KC thread be the FINAL KC THREAD.

But I think the OP has a valid discussion of our FO and their concluding the saga even though it does have a bit of dead horsemeat around it as well.

I want to give the FO good props for the last 2 years in most all areas not QB related, and I think they get a pass on KC because, like it or not, he at some point decided he was not going to hold serious negotiations. The FO bears a lot of that blame, but once KC set his mind to his path, I think the FO had to make new plans. I think we take Calais Campbell IF the FO knew without a doubt that KC was onboard, but KC's intransigence made the FO hold back on any splash, in case KC negotiations got close and they needed that extra bit to push it over the edge. (That's all speculation though)

This year KC said in his interview that he wouldn't do a thing until after March, and the FO wisely walked away. That was the right move as soon as KC said he would wait.

FO gets a B+ from me for the overall KC drama. My breakdown of the full hindsight case is this:
First quarter: D- Snyder held on to RG3 took tightly this quarter
2nd quarter: C+ they should have made a better pitch for a long term deal, but did anybody REALLY feel KC was a no questions asked guy after his first full year?
Third quarter: D-, the second tag should have been non exclusive, and then KC maybe would have felt he got his chance to see where his value on the market would have been AND we may have gotten better compensation if KC left
4th quarter:A+ closed it off with a bang. Once the FO knew that no deal was there, they didn't play footsies with the scorned lover, they took the bitter pill, and we will have a better team for it.

[Dan73]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

If this is a KC thread, lets close it and let the final KC thread be the FINAL KC THREAD.

But I think the OP has a valid discussion of our FO and their concluding the saga even though it does have a bit of dead horsemeat around it as well.

I want to give the FO good props for the last 2 years in most all areas not QB related, and I think they get a pass on KC because, like it or not, he at some point decided he was not going to hold serious negotiations. The FO bears a lot of that blame, but once KC set his mind to his path, I think the FO had to make new plans. I think we take Calais Campbell IF the FO knew without a doubt that KC was onboard, but KC's intransigence made the FO hold back on any splash, in case KC negotiations got close and they needed that extra bit to push it over the edge. (That's all speculation though)

This year KC said in his interview that he wouldn't do a thing until after March, and the FO wisely walked away. That was the right move as soon as KC said he would wait.

FO gets a B+ from me for the overall KC drama. My breakdown of the full hindsight case is this:
First quarter: D- Snyder held on to RG3 took tightly this quarter
2nd quarter: C+ they should have made a better pitch for a long term deal, but did anybody REALLY feel KC was a no questions asked guy after his first full year?
Third quarter: D-, the second tag should have been non exclusive, and then KC maybe would have felt he got his chance to see where his value on the market would have been AND we may have gotten better compensation if KC left
4th quarter:A+ closed it off with a bang. Once the FO knew that no deal was there, they didn't play footsies with the scorned lover, they took the bitter pill, and we will have a better team for it.

I look at RGIII and guys like him an Manzel and this these guy put up on too much of a pedestal and it ruins them for the game. Thinking that they are more important or bigger than the team. And I can't help but wonder if the same thing didn't end up happening to Cousins.

I think back to Haynesworth he though too much of himself to adapt to a new scheme ( mind you I hated going for 4 3 to 3 4)

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

[sdskinsfan2001]

To me, this is moreso a front office thread than a KC thread.

If the FO does well in free agency and the draft, I'll give them an A for the whole Kirk thing. Kirk won't win a Super Bowl anywhere, and they wanted to see more progress before giving him the world. Gruden and Scott M both seem to agree that he isn't worth what he wants as well.

We sign Zach Brown and a starting WR, then get a starting RB and some more beef for the DL in the 1st 2 rounds of draft, and then some more OL and secondary depth the rest of the draft, we'll be gucci.

[Dan73]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

To me, this is moreso a front office thread than a KC thread.

If the FO does well in free agency and the draft, I'll give them an A for the whole Kirk thing. Kirk won't win a Super Bowl anywhere, and they wanted to see more progress before giving him the world. Gruden and Scott M both seem to agree that he isn't worth what he wants as well.

We sign Zach Brown and a starting WR, then get a starting RB and some more beef for the DL in the 1st 2 rounds of draft, and then some more OL and secondary depth the rest of the draft, we'll be gucci.

I
Brown I would like to see back but if they feel they can upgrade over him with their first or send pick then that is ok. But they better address NT ILB RB and WR with either 2 in FA and 2 in the high end of the draft to get me more on board to be excited about the season.

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by Dan73

I
Brown I would like to see back but if they feel they can upgrade over him with their first or send pick then that is ok. But they better address NT ILB RB and WR with either 2 in FA and 2 in the high end of the draft to get me more on board to be excited about the season.

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

Zach Brown and Mason Foster would be solid MLB starters but I wouldn't be mad at Roquan Smith or T. Edmunds flying around in a Skins uni. Brown and either of those 2 would be a great starting MLB group. Either way, I want Brown back. Don't think Mason is making so much that we can't keep him as a great backup to both spots.

I want a veteran receiver in FA as we need someone ready to produce asap. Rookie WRs struggle a bit adjusting.

[KI Skins Fan]

Dan, did you not notice the thread entitled The LAST Kirk Cousins Saga Thread?