Our 2018 starting QB will be....

Cousins had those parts around him against the Giants to end the season in 2016 and shrunk. Win and you're in the playoffs. Brees can pick up and lead. Cousins shrinks. That's the point.

ntotoro said:

Cousins had those parts around him against the Giants to end the season in 2016 and shrunk. Win and you're in the playoffs. Brees can pick up and lead. Cousins shrinks. That's the point.

Click to expand...

If you really believe that, yeah ok.

Didn't see no top ten D here or run game to match...like Brees has.

I'm not going to comment on this subject anymore.

It's clear to me that everyone thinks Kirk Cousins=Blake Bortles and I'm not changing anyone's mind here nor are you changing mine.

We have no credible GM to run things in DC, so I doubt we find a suitable replacement.

If you believe this front office can do it, more power to you. I just don't believe in this front office anymore.

Bortles sucks. Period. End of story. Has nothing to do with Cousins. My contempt for the FO has no bearing on what I see when I think of Cousins. I don't understand why those things have to be mutually exclusive. They're all separate issues.

Clearly Cousins is not Bortles but he's no Brees either. Would anyone here (or anywhere) not take Brees over Cousins if given the chance?

In that home game vs the Giants with a healthy offensive line, Garcon, Jackson, Reed, Kelley, and Thompson (and with a trip to the playoffs on the line against a team with nothing to play for) Cousins came through with a 16.3 QBR with two ints.

The defense gave up 19 points.

We can go back and look at how many time this franchise has been late to the table to take action on personnel.

We did it by letting Ryan Clark go after the 2005 season rather than signing him during the season to an extension. Sean Taylor said he was the best tandem safety he played with - and his departure later caused us to use a #1 pick on Laron Landry.

We did it before 2015 with Robert Griffin. We should have released Griffin after he showed in 2013 and 2014 that he wasn't going to be a franchise qb in the NFL, in fact he wasn't good enough in a traditional scheme to be a starter in the NFL. Then there were the cumulative injuries.

But we kept him around as the deactivated quarterback for the 16 games anyway, realizing that if we played him and he got hurt his 5th year option would vest.

Then you consider Cousins. Should we have signed him after 2015? Yes. Should we have followed up in 2016 to try and hammer out a real contract? Yes. Should we then have traded Cousins before the 2017 draft when we realized that wasn't going to happen? Yes.

So, once again, we are sitting here looking at a situation where the horse is already what, 80% out of the barn and we are desperately trying to remedy the situation.

My reaction to Cousins is two-fold. I had no problem bringing Cousins back early on and having him playing this season for $18M or $19M. Even the $21M or $22M from 2016 was OK.

But there is no way his performances in the 'clutch' with something on the line shows that he has the kind of skills that elevate him into that rare air of the top 6-8 players.

That is evidently the level at which he wants to be paid. So, my response is 'no thank you'.

Some folks like Kevin Sheehan on ESPN 980 feel that a quarterback that has shown he is functionally competent in the job is going to get paid and should be paid by his current team before potentially losing him. He noted the Redskins don't have a ready replacement.

I don't believe that. I think that with a salary cap you have to keep in mind the theory or relative value. If Cousins is one of the top 6-8 quarterbacks in the NFL he deserves a contract reflecting that level of performance.

But he's not in that group. One can argue he is a bit behind some of the guys in the next tier down such as Philip Rivers as well.

What Sheehan fails to see is that with 32 teams in the league there is always going to be an 'idiot' owner that offers one player a deal that wrecks his team's cap or chances of contending. Rather than 'setting' the market it is a cautionary tale not to overreach. Deals for guys like Brock Osweiler and veterans such as Jay Cutler or Joe Flacco are examples.

What you are banking on if you pay the qb top dollar is that his 'uber' skills as a top passer are going to help you overcome the fact his salary is eating up cap dollars that can't go to bringing in players at some other positions.

Guys like Aaron Rodgers, Brady and Ben Roethlisberger have shown in the past they can carry a team with a supporting cast that is 'OK' or even 'solid' on offense but not spectacular.

The catch here is when you are evaluating Cousins is that Brady didn't have an offensive line as good as the Redskins had in 2016. Kirk had time to throw the ball. I don't think any of his receivers from last year are in Pierre Garcon's class in terms of consistency and production as well as durability.

And to Sheehan's point that there is no replacement on the roster, the truth is that 2017 was not a great quarterback draft.

The one thing you don't want to do is 'push' a draft pick for the sake of filling a hole.

The 2018 draft is shaping up with better qb talent across the board with prospects going into the second round that project as potential starters in the NFL.

With the #13 pick, and a chance to move up or down in theory, this is a much better year to find that young anchor passer.

And be able to add another 'X' number of draft picks and free agents to improve the overall roster around him.

TBH, I don't care who our QB is for 2018 as long as he is a Redskin for all the right reasons, and not financial reasons. In all reality, we are still suffering from the Archuleta/Haynesworth era (money before team). Draftees don't really have a choice, but FA's do!

Top 6-8? If only.

Its pretty obvious to me that he he wants to be THE highest paid at the position. There is a sucker born everyday, I hope it's not us this time.

He wants to max out on guaranteed money, which anyone would like, but he's trying to get as close to 100% guaranteed as possible and has made that clear.

Even a three-year deal at $75m, 100% fully guaranteed as a signing bonus or something would be absurd for a team. See: Flacco, Joe for how wrong that can go in just one year. No team wants to tie up that kind of money without an "out" especially in today's era with a salary cap. He sees teams paying their QB's serious bucks and still able to afford a roster... but I'm wondering exactly what teams he means, how good they are and how he compares to their QB's. Not stats-hunting, but when the SHTF.

The market rate for QB's can be adjusted, just like any other position. It wasn't all that long ago was saw a huge market correction on RB's and I think Joe Flacco at the very least shows there needs to be one for QB's. Just because a guy can throw a ball forward doesn't mean you pay him $28m a year.

I wish him luck in finding a good (winning) organization that will pay him what he wants.

ntotoro said:

He wants to max out on guaranteed money, which anyone would like, but he's trying to get as close to 100% guaranteed as possible and has made that clear.

Even a three-year deal at $75m, 100% fully guaranteed as a signing bonus or something would be absurd for a team. See: Flacco, Joe for how wrong that can go in just one year. No team wants to tie up that kind of money without an "out" especially in today's era with a salary cap. He sees teams paying their QB's serious bucks and still able to afford a roster... but I'm wondering exactly what teams he means, how good they are and how he compares to their QB's. Not stats-hunting, but when the SHTF.

The market rate for QB's can be adjusted, just like any other position. It wasn't all that long ago was saw a huge market correction on RB's and I think Joe Flacco at the very least shows there needs to be one for QB's. Just because a guy can throw a ball forward doesn't mean you pay him $28m a year.

Click to expand...

Do you happen to have a link to the information on him wanting as close to 100% guaranteed as possible? Not questioning you, but I haven't followed this as closely as some and hadn't heard that type of statement from him or his agent.

DixieFlatline said:

Do you happen to have a link to the information on him wanting as close to 100% guaranteed as possible? Not questioning you, but I haven't followed this as closely as some and hadn't heard that type of statement from him or his agent.

Click to expand...

I don't have a specific link, but that is the RUMINT on local radio from people who have spoken to his agent.

To me it just seems Kirk wants out, but he's using his agent to be the “bad guy” so he (KC) won't appear to be.

There's barely ANY commitment statements to be found saying he wants to be here, and instructed his agent to get a Ltd completed. Nothing
Edit: Believable ones anyway

The no counter-offer back to the team last offseason was very telling imho. There's bloggers and what not claiming he's been “disrespected” by the franchise for the back to back tags. To me it says the team wants him to offer a contract template, yet he and his agent are stalling until free agency.

At this point I'd be shocked if he stays with the team. Like shaken to the core shocked.

I agree. His politician act has gotten really old.

I think you're giving Kirk too much credit - he's absolutely said (and repeatedly) he wants to be here. I've pretty much decided that he's 100% full of shit. He just doesn't have the balls to come right out and say that short of some ridiculous record breaking payday, he's not willing to stay in B&G. He's hedging his bets. It's all about Kirk. And if that's who he is, that's fine. And I have the perogative to say screw you Cousins as a fan.

Between his pathetic performance in the season finale, where it looked all the world to me like he could care less, to his bullshit politically correct vagueries at his 'event', he clearly doesn't mean what he says. If he did - the deal would already be in progress or signed. It ain't and I would be absolutely shocked if it ever is.

He's not a great QB.
He's not worth a record-breaking deal.
And most importantly - I see zero evidence he cares about this team and wants to be here.

I hope somehow, some way, he ends up in Cleveland or some other NFL graveyard of a franchise.

The Grant & Danny circle jerkfest really didn't do anything to help the perception of Cousins.

Yeah Boone you elaborated what I was attempting to say but betterer. He and his agent are milking this cow for all it's worth.

Time to take his noncommitted ass elsewhere for the $. The half assed wants to be here bs is just lip service.

One fair offer should be made and if he balks then time to tap out, like a blackjack dealer shift change.

ntotoro said:

The Grant & Danny circle jerkfest really didn't do anything to help the perception of Cousins.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think that's a gross understatement. He's not as clever as he thinks. Anyone watching that or reading the transcripts can see right through the blather to what he's really saying. And his sideways bitching about Gruden's 'assessment' irks me too. Hey Kirk - when it counted in crunch time, you blew. Life's a bitch. If you don't want honest coaching feedback, maybe be able to walk the walk when it counts instead of just giving calm collected non-explanations at post-game pressers.

I really think the Skins need to franchise tag him (with zero intent to sign and force a team to trade for him and give up big compensation). And if no deal can be worked out - eff it. Pay him his 34 million for a year and let Colt start. See how he likes that.

Greedy Lying Bastard sounds a lot more accurate now, doesn't it?

#8 is a puppet, by choice, to his agent. And what agent EVER had a teams interest even slightly in mind?

And Boone, I know I had said if he didn't sign a generous offer, right away, that I would cut his ass. I thought it too risky to tag him, and after not being able to trade him, to get stuck with the $34mil.

But then yesterday, before seeing your post, I thought, "You know what, just because we can't trade him, doesn't mean we have to play him. Bench his ass. A healthy scratch for the season." I mean what the hell, we'd already be screwed anyway. Why not piss on him as he walks out the door. Also, we can lower the trade compensation to whatever we want. Take lower picks, and pay part of his bonus, just to be able to trade him to Cleveland. Of course, if some idiot is willing to give a couple high picks, we take it. If not, do what we can to send him to Siberia.

Ax said:

Greedy Lying Bastard sounds a lot more accurate now, doesn't it?

#8 is a puppet, by choice, to his agent. And what agent EVER had a teams interest even slightly in mind?

And Boone, I know I had said if he didn't sign a generous offer, right away, that I would cut his ass. I thought it too risky to tag him, and after not being able to trade him, to get stuck with the $34mil.

But then yesterday, before seeing your post, I thought, "You know what, just because we can't trade him, doesn't mean we have to play him. Bench his ass. A healthy scratch for the season." I mean what the hell, we'd already be screwed anyway. Why not piss on him as he walks out the door. Also, we can lower the trade compensation to whatever we want. Take lower picks, and pay part of his bonus, just to be able to trade him to Cleveland. Of course, if some idiot is willing to give a couple high picks, we take it. If not, do what we can to send him to Siberia.

Click to expand...

That would be awesome!

You know why?

Because with actions like that, you'd broadcast to every potential free agent in the league that the Washington Redskins are the biggest assholes in the league and if you don't play for us on the cheap, we'll do our dead level best to screw you over.

It also tells all our home grown talent the same thing and puts the idea in their head ": If I don't agree to the teams' contract demands and sign for the "hometown discount" are they going to "Cousins" me?

Brilliant team building strategy. Good luck with that.

DieselPwr44 said:

That would be awesome!

You know why?

Because with actions like that, you'd broadcast to every potential free agent in the league that the Washington Redskins are the biggest assholes in the league and if you don't play for us on the cheap, we'll do our dead level best to screw you over.

It also tells all our home grown talent the same thing and puts the idea in their head ": If I don't agree to the teams' contract demands and sign for the "hometown discount" are they going to "Cousins" me?

Brilliant team building strategy. Good luck with that.

Click to expand...

Well, that certainly would be the way the Kirkites might take it.

But when you're dealing with a Greedy Lying Bastard, who has no intention of signing anything but the richest guaranteed deal in NFL history, there's little the team can do but treat him with the disdain that he and his side are treating them.

I know you think the sun rises and sets in #8 . And you're entitled to think so. And I'm sure whenever you buy a new vehicle, you don't try to negotiate a better deal than what "The WindowSticker/Market" says it's worth. But as much as you believe there is no amount too high, as long as "The Market/WindowSticker" says so, you seem to totally discount the notion that the team could set a number that THEY believe is the most he's worth, and that they'll spend, and stick to it. You believe everything #8 and his agent says. They are the gospel truth. Doers of only good deeds. Infallible.

Other players on the team see that we have been signing a lot of our home grown talent. Sure, they're all privately hoping #8 gets $120mil fully guaranteed. Every player in the league is rooting for that. But I give the players more credit than you do. They all care more about their deal, than anybody else's. They also know there are limits to business expenditures. But you somehow think the Redskins are not allowed to have limits. You've let your personal desire to sign the Greedy Lying Bastard override any sense of balance, or fairness. The only one in your mind who should get a great deal is #8 . You're entitled to think so.

Others are entitled to disagree.