The FINAL Kirk Cousins Saga thread. 5.0

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by mooby

It will be interesting to see how Dallas fares this season, Zeke and the line did a great job of taking pressure off Dak two years ago. It's a lot easier to pass when defenses have to be commit to stopping the run.

I'd imagine they will stack the box again and make him pass, this is a huge yr for Dak, if he plays like he did this past season they could move on after next yr.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by WillH

No need to condescend. I understand the tag situations, we just disagree on the likelihood. I concede that your point about flexibility in free agency is a good one, but if you're willing to concede that there exists to be a potential for Cousins to work with the team on a trade than I think this is still a very relevant discussion.

In your best case scenario you are suggesting that we wouldn't be able to really get who we want unless things are settled by the opening of free agency. I would suggest that this may not be as accurate as you intuit. In recent free agency periods we were not extremely active with high priced players out of the gate, most of our higher priced acquisitions came late in free agency. Why would this change, and would you really want it to?

I also think it is worth consideration whether or not sacrificing an active free agency this year is worth attempting to find compensation for our best asset. An additional 1st round pick this year is likely a much better value than 34mil worth of free agents, all things considered.

Although yours is a good argument worth consideration it is not a flawless one, and doesn't just end the relevance of the discussion.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I didn't even remotely try to condescend anybody, I was earnestly discussing. Did I do it by accident? Am I that good at it?

I would say there's a super small chance the team will be able to trade Cousins, and the approach would have to be tagging him when first able on February 15, and then threatening to keep him if he can't find a suitable trade partner by March 6.

I don't like the chances though because the risk is too great that Cousins will just sign the tag and play on it.

[Schneed10]

If you want to tag him, you're stuck with a $34M cap hit:

Whenever the conversation has turned to his contract, Cousins has always said the right thing. If Washington should again franchise him, he'll sign it and play once more on a one-year deal.

"I think we'll do what we've done the past two seasons. There's no need to change the script. Stay consistent with the plan: Let the team do what they want to do," Cousins said. "We'll see what the Redskins want to do and then I'll react accordingly."

Earlier this month, Redskins coach Jay Gruden acknowledged that he'd prefer not to "go through another one-year" deal with his quarterback. And Cousins has previously told 106.7 The Fan that "there's a part of me that would like to get settled." Still, Cousins wants to be clear: He's not complaining about the prospects of making $34.5 million in 2018.

"There's been a false narrative out there," he told Florio. "[Agent] Mike McCartney has really counseled me all along, if the team franchises you one, two, three times, just sign it."

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/k...e-on-a-winner/

[WillH]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I didn't even remotely try to condescend anybody, I was earnestly discussing. Did I do it by accident? Am I that good at it?

I would say there's a super small chance the team will be able to trade Cousins, and the approach would have to be tagging him when first able on February 15, and then threatening to keep him if he can't find a suitable trade partner by March 6.

I don't like the chances though because the risk is too great that Cousins will just sign the tag and play on it.

Sorry, that post was fine, this was what I was actually referring to:

"We really need to brush up on what the franchise tag means, in terms of cap space, in terms of what happens when it's signed, in terms of deadlines, all of that. There seems to be so much misunderstanding that you guys are coming up with cockamamie schemes to extract value for him, but you'd actually put the Redskins even further behind the 8 ball."

Your "earnest discussion," included saying those who think a trade should be considered didn't know as much as you about the franchise tag and our thoughts about it were cockamamie schemes. You weren't rude or offensive, but IMO, condescending.

Who cares though, I guess my point is, if you want to discuss let's discuss and not just dismiss each other's thoughts but actually make arguments (which you have for the most part and which I think is interesting and insightful) ... these are a couple questions you have decided not to address while calling my and others thoughts cockamamie schemes:

1. Wouldn't Cousins look bad after everything he said if he were to refuse to negotiate with other teams or us and just play on the tag?

2. Do you really think that there is a major issue with missing out on the beginning of free agency given the way we've approached free agency for 3-4 years? Why? Do you believe they should have been more aggressive before or is there a reason they should be more aggressive now?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by WillH

1. Wouldn't Cousins look bad after everything he said if he were to refuse to negotiate with other teams or us and just play on the tag?

2. Do you really think that there is a major issue with missing out on the beginning of free agency given the way we've approached free agency for 3-4 years? Why? Do you believe they should have been more aggressive before or is there a reason they should be more aggressive now?

On one, yeah maybe. But he just said today that if tagged he would sign it. Doesn't mean he still wouldn't be open to getting traded, granted. But I don't think how he's perceived will govern what he does.

On two, you may forget that even though they didn't end up landing any top tier free agents early on in the cycle, that's not for lack of trying. On day 1 they were bidding on both DeSean Jackson and Calais Campbell. They bowed out late in the negotiation process when the price passed a certain point. They then ended up getting McGee and McClain a few days later, and then later getting Pryor. But that's not to say that was their plan A for DL and WR. If Cousins occupies $34M of their cap, they can't even consider a similar plan A this year. If anything, given the lack of success McGee, McClain, and Pryor all had, they may be thinking that they should have ponied up for Campbell or Jackson, if not both. Their mindset going into this year could be that they need to be more aggressive. I don't know if that's the case or not, all I know is carrying Cousins at $34M precludes that possibility.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

If you want to tag him, you're stuck with a $34M cap hit:



https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/k...e-on-a-winner/

This is a nightmare scenario for me. At 34 million, you're really hurting the ability to improve the rest of the team. And we still have to resign key free agents.

[sandtrapjack]

Originally Posted by mooby

It will be interesting to see how Dallas fares this season, Zeke and the line did a great job of taking pressure off Dak two years ago. It's a lot easier to pass when defenses have to be commit to stopping the run.

I've always said Dak ain't the answer. Rookie year, looked good. But everyone does when things are going great. Needed to see how he reacts to a little adversity, when things are not so good. He was average at best.

He has no deep ball accuracy. And no deep threat to take the top off a defense.

As a matter of fact, told a friend the other day I would not mind seeing Dallas reach out to Cousins......not making that up.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

It is not like the front office went out of the way to surround him with talented help either. While Philly was getting guys like Blount and Ajayi, and retaining Jeffery and Smith. Washington let two 1000 yard receivers walk and did little to provide depth behind Reed.

Just sayin' cannot put 7-9 on KC. He's a big reason they got the 7.

The Redskins did the right thing by letting Garcon and Jackson walk. Look how both fared this year? What they weren't counting on was Pryor and Doc both underperforming.

[WillH]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

On one, yeah maybe. But he just said today that if tagged he would sign it. Doesn't mean he still wouldn't be open to getting traded, granted. But I don't think how he's perceived will govern what he does.

On two, you may forget that even though they didn't end up landing any top tier free agents early on in the cycle, that's not for lack of trying. On day 1 they were bidding on both DeSean Jackson and Calais Campbell. They bowed out late in the negotiation process when the price passed a certain point. They then ended up getting McGee and McClain a few days later, and then later getting Pryor. But that's not to say that was their plan A for DL and WR. If Cousins occupies $34M of their cap, they can't even consider a similar plan A this year. If anything, given the lack of success McGee, McClain, and Pryor all had, they may be thinking that they should have ponied up for Campbell or Jackson, if not both. Their mindset going into this year could be that they need to be more aggressive. I don't know if that's the case or not, all I know is carrying Cousins at $34M precludes that possibility.

I don't entirely agree on your first point. I do think his public perception matters to him, in part because he's been so vocal in the media, and will play a role in his decision.

Your second point is a strong one though. I do think that scenario would make certain moves impossible and potentially changes the game plan, but I don't know that those moves are necessarily worth throwing away a shot at a trade.

The transition tag and trade option is what is being thrown around more right now. This was my original first option, but I got nervous about all the talk from the Browns (their LT mostly). Your arguments about the free agency may have swayed me back. To that purpose, you said something earlier about teams just structuring a deal we can't match. As of now, only two teams really have the cap room to do that, the Jets and Browns. So, is it your opinion that he would leave us for either of those teams?

He really pushed the "it's not about money it's about winning" narrative today. If he goes to either of those teams he is full of shit. I personally think he's genuine, he has had opportunity to out right lie or mislead in his is own advantage but he hasn't. Also, he's taken great pains at times to give politically savvy nonanswers. In this point, however, he has really been direct. I really doubt he is just looking for a pay day. He is already rich, and immortality through success cannot be bought. The question than becomes, are those situations so much more beneficial than the Redskins? Maybe, the grass is always greener effect plays a role here too. Even so, is it more beneficial then Denver instead? No chance he will evaluate the Jets or Browns as a better landing spot than the Broncos. Broncos can't out bid us, but they can negotiate. If they want him, and they really seem like they do, a 2nd round pick might get it done. Also, it may be in their best interest to go this route rather than getting in a bidding war with the browns or jets. The difference from the transition tag scenario being that Cousins and his agent don't need to top their hand by accepting or declining an offer from the Browns in free agency, they can simply use the offer as leverage with the Broncos.

Also, I heard the junkies this morning saying that the team could franchise tag him and release him if they can't get a deal done. Is this true? Wouldn't there be a big cap hit?


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[sdskinsfan2001]

DO NOT FUCKING FRANCHISE TAG COUSINS!

The risk that he just sits on the 34 million is too high. Offer him a contract that is the highest the team is willing to pay and he has until March 12th to sign it. Otherwise, cya. We can get a QB at 13 or even trade down to get a Mike White type of QB then use all those extra picks and cap space to boost up all our other units.

We got Kirk in the 4th, we can get another QB somewhere 13th or later.

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

DO NOT FUCKING FRANCHISE TAG COUSINS!

The risk that he just sits on the 34 million is too high. Offer him a contract that is the highest the team is willing to pay and he has until March 12th to sign it. Otherwise, cya. We can get a QB at 13 or even trade down to get a Mike White type of QB then use all those extra picks and cap space to boost up all our other units.

We got Kirk in the 4th, we can get another QB somewhere 13th or later.

Agreed.

Kirk Cousins wants to win, and find the right team he can help win – ProFootballTalk

" Cousins has already played on it twice and said he and his agent think it’s a good deal for a quarterback.

“There’s been a false narrative out there,” Cousins said. “Mike McCartney has really counseled me all along, if the team franchises you one, two, three times, just sign it.” "

If we tag him, (waaayyyy) more likely than not he'll play under the tag.

[mooby]

I agree. Just give him our best offer, and prepare for him to say no. If it's about winning, obviously he doesn't like what he sees here. Maybe he has questions about our talent evaluators for bringing in Pryor and expecting a rookie wideout to replace two solid receivers in Garcon and Jackson.

I think the only way he's here next year is if we tag him again. He said it himself, it's about winning. I think from him being behind the curtain, he doesn't like what he sees and is just waiting until it's no longer financially convenient for us to tag him.

[WillH]

I hear what you guys are saying about his comment about playing on the tag, but given the rest of his comments about winning vs money, this interpretation doesn't seem to match the rest of his narrative IMO.

Another possibility, which matches the rest of his narrative better to me, is that what he means is that if they tag him and don't give him the opportunity to look elsewhere then he will feel comfortable playing on that deal. In other words, he wants every dollar he can out of them or he wants to see what's out there. That's why he says we'll see what their decision is in March and we'll react from there. He wants out, and he's willing to make them pay if they won't let him, but that didn't mean he'd choose either year of this for the big pay off and forfeit his chance to find the right place for himself.

Edit: I just listened to the whole quote and am even more convinced of this. He is responding to whether or not he feels slighted being on the franchise tag because he isn't being committed to and he goes into the whole schpiel about first it was their choice and then it was mine, we will see what the choose to do now. He just wants out at this point, but he's a professional and will play here if he has to and them putting him on it is more about them wanting him than not wanting to commit to him. None of it sounds like he is daring them to tag him.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Brody81]

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/nfl...197508249.html

Meet your new QB


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WillH]

Holy crap

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk