Cousins

[tshile]

I heard a reporter say that Cousins will be a free agent in 4 years.
Is that really the maximum contract length for a rookie ?

Yes, rookie contracts after the first round are 4 years
rookie contracts for the first round are 4 years with the club having the option of a 5th year.

Awww maaaaaaaaaaan! PLEASE don't say that.

Just hoping he doesn't play like him.

Check it out in the audio vault this afternoon.

http://espn980.com/audiovault/

sounds like someone took all the transcripts from john beck over the last year and said 'here, read this when you go on the radio'

 

[CounterTrey]

The point I am making is that the Patriots deserve the benefit of the doubt, and the Redskins do not. I would compare the Win/Loss records of the two clubs over the past decade, but nobody needs to see something that hideous this early in the morning.

I think that's the main disconnect - we clearly have different views of the scenarios. I think they couldn't be more different, you seem to think they are very similar. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "no free agency" - there was a very healthy FA class, highlighted by the "Dream Team" out in Philly.

Sorry to dip into your exchange but my beef with this is that Shanahan and Allen haven't been here the last decade so any comparison between this team they had nothing to do with and any other is patent waste of time. You have to compare relevant track records. You can't look at this FO's moves and say "same old" Redskins because it CLEARLY isn't. Even if you don't like the moves to compare Shanny and Allen to Vinny and Dan is not only unfair it's absurd and that's exactly what's being done when they are being lumped in with Dan and Vinny's track record and having things like the last decade compared. What would be more fair and accurate would be to compare the tenures of those guys the last ten years of their careers and compare someone else. Sorry if I'm playing the parrot here but to me it's an enormous distinction that is being shuffled under the carpet by many.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

True, but they were still saddled with the results of the last decade: namely, an NFL talent cupboard that was almost empty.

Ok, I'm pretty much over this discussion ... but are some of you REALLY arguing that three firsts and a second is no big deal?

Yeah, I'm not sure on what universe 3 firsts and a second are no big deal.

 

[CounterTrey]

Ok, I'm pretty much over this discussion ... but are some of you REALLY arguing that three firsts and a second is no big deal?

It's two firsts and yes with this FO and thier track record of making use of trading down to later round picks I'm saying it's not nearly as big of a deal as is being made out. Not having one pick next year and one the following when we have an FO that is adept at late round picks and also at acquiring more than anytime in our Franchise's history is not a big deal.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

It's two firsts and yes with this FO and thier track record of making use of trading down to later round picks I'm saying it's not nearly as big of a deal as is being made out. Not having one pick next year and one the following when we have an FO that is adept at late round picks and also at acquiring more than anytime in our Franchise's history is not a big deal.

Even if you ignore swapping firsts this year, you can't feasibly ignore the 2nd round pick. If it had been a third, maybe, but you'd be stretching. A fourth, well that's what this whole discussion was about in the first place.

The 2nd round pick is huge! Plenty of quality NFL talent has come from the 2nd round.

 

[CounterTrey]

True, but they were still saddled with the results of the last decade: namely, an NFL talent cupboard that was almost empty.



Yeah, I'm not sure on what universe 3 firsts and a second are no big deal.

And you guys are complaining about what they've done to make up for it...and it's 2 firsts, we didn't lose a 1st we swapped for a higher one.

 

[Fear The Spear]

Yes, rookie contracts after the first round are 4 years
rookie contracts for the first round are 4 years with the club having the option of a 5th year.

Then the bottom line is we need to develop him in 2 or 3 years, so we can trade him, and get some of that value back, which I think is part of the plan, other than insurance against an RG3 injury.

 

[CounterTrey]

Even if you ignore swapping firsts this year, you can't feasibly ignore the 2nd round pick. If it had been a third, maybe, but you'd be stretching. A fourth, well that's what this whole discussion was about in the first place.

The 2nd round pick is huge! Plenty of quality NFL talent has come from the 2nd round.

Not when you consider what we got in return. Sorry it's one guy who might or might not make it and would be a hell of a lot more of a gamble than RG is. RG is as sure of a bet as were going to see in the draft.

 

[Fear The Spear]

True, but they were still saddled with the results of the last decade: namely, an NFL talent cupboard that was almost empty.



Yeah, I'm not sure on what universe 3 firsts and a second are no big deal.

I swear if ONE more person says we gave up THREE firsts for Griffin, I'm gonna make a sig out of it, to clear up that horrid misonception.

 

[CounterTrey]

I swear if ONE more person says we gave up THREE firsts for Griffin, I'm gonna make a sig out of it, to clear up that horrid misonception.

Yea we GAVE up the lower round pick to have the higher one forced on us.

 

[Ax]

Ok, I'm pretty much over this discussion ... but are some of you REALLY arguing that three firsts and a second is no big deal?

It can, or can't be. It is not a cut and dried thing.

If Griffin sucks, and the picks winds up in the top ten, it's a huge deal.
If he's average, and the picks wind up between 10-18, it's a big deal, but not fatal.
If he's good, and the picks are in the low to mid 20's, it's not a big deal.
If he's great, and the picks are in the mid to upper 20's, or 30, 31, 32, then we're on the winning side of the Louisiana Purchase. And susceptible to lawsuit from the Rams for fleecing them.

And, even if we had those picks, and drafted busts, which every team in the history of the draft has done, then again, they're no big deal.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

And you guys are complaining about what they've done to make up for it...and it's 2 firsts, we didn't lose a 1st we swapped for a higher one.

But we still gave up our first this year. If it was only two firsts for their first, then we'd still have 2014's first round pick.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

I swear if ONE more person says we gave up THREE firsts for Griffin, I'm gonna make a sig out of it, to clear up that horrid misonception.

Yea we GAVE up the lower round pick to have the higher one forced on us.

Its really pretty simple math, guys.

We gave up:
Pick 6 overall, 2012
Second round pick, 2012
First round pick, 2013
First round pick, 2014

We received:
Pick 2 overall, 2012

That is an exchange of three first round picks and one second round pick for a first round pick, no? You're arguing semantics otherwise, which is kind of pointless.

 

[CounterTrey]

We "gave it up" and got a HIGHER one....that's not even close to impression given when folks say we gave up that 1st. It makes it sound like we wound up with no 1st this year and it's dumb. We didn't "give up" that implies being left with nothing, we swapped up. We gave up a 2nd this year and 2 future 1sts, that's the only thing we "lost".

 

[CounterTrey]

Its really pretty simple math, guys.

We gave up:
Pick 6 overall, 2012
Second round pick, 2012
First round pick, 2013
First round pick, 2014

We received:
Pick 2 overall, 2012

That is an exchange of three first round picks and one second round pick for a first round pick, no? You're arguing semantics otherwise, which is kind of pointless.

And you're projecting which is even more pointless in this case.

 

[Fear The Spear]

Its really pretty simple math, guys.

We gave up:
Pick 6 overall, 2012
Second round pick, 2012
First round pick, 2013
First round pick, 2014

We received:
Pick 2 overall, 2012

That is an exchange of three first round picks and one second round pick for a first round pick, no? You're arguing semantics otherwise, which is kind of pointless.

No, we arguing NET value, which is quite the opposite of pointless.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

We "gave it up" and got a HIGHER one....that's not even close to impression given when folks say we gave up that 1st. It makes it sound like we wound up with no 1st this year and it's dumb. We didn't "give up" that implies being left with nothing, we swapped up. We gave up a 2nd this year and 2 future 1sts, that's the only thing we "lost".

Eh, I'm over the semantics argument. As far as I can recall, we were not able to use the 6th overall pick in this draft, therefore we must have given it up. We had a 'net loss' of 2 firsts and a second, but we gave up 3 firsts and a second.

And you're projecting which is even more pointless in this case.

Say what?

 

[Ax]

Yes, it cost us three 1st's, and a 2nd.

And if Griffin wins 1 Super Bowl here, it'll be worth it, easily.

Win 2, and we beat the Ram's ass and took their lunch money.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

No, we arguing NET value, which is quite the opposite of pointless.

Exactly, semantics. Still gave up 3 first round picks.

 

[CounterTrey]

Eh, I'm over the semantics argument. As far as I can recall, we were not able to use the 6th overall pick in this draft, therefore we must have given it up. We had a 'net loss' of 2 firsts and a second, but we gave up 3 firsts and a second.



Say what?

LOL....say what? Say you're trying to chide me for arguing semantics when you're....arguing semantics. That's classic projecting.