Schefter Reports Contract Talks with Cousins Broken Off

[Breed]

If Cousins plays on the tag and kicks ass, the cost of tagging him next year would be upwards of $25 million. Thats a very hard sell considering the fact that if he again played well, we would then be capwise unable to keep him any way. As to tag him a 3rd time would cost $31 million.

Would you rather sign him long term and if he sucks, it cost us $20-25 million over the next three years, or risk him $76 million over the same time span??

I wasn't trying to imply tagging Cuz twice was a good idea. Just letting VT know if Cuz balls out next year under the tag. He can't simply can't leave for the highest bidder the following year because the Skins have no recourse.

As for what I would personally do. As of this moment, at this present time in history. I wouldn't sign Cuz to a multi-year deal at 19 - 20 per. For all the talk of his supposed historic play the last however many games, and don't get me wrong, he had some great games last year. Not one came against a good team. I'll say the Pats game started off rough with all the drops and w/o them maybe its a different game, but the bottom line is. The Skins played 3 good teams during Cuz's run and all three pretty much ass paddled the Skins. It just leaves me with too much uncertainty. I'd tag him if we couldn't come to an agreement this year. An agreement on the right side of 19 mill a year.

 

[Sharkinva]

I wasn't trying to imply tagging Cuz twice was a good idea. Just letting VT know if Cuz balls out next year under the tag. He can't simply can't leave for the highest bidder the following year because the Skins have no recourse.

As for what I would personally do. As of this moment, at this present time in history. I wouldn't sign Cuz to a multi-year deal at 19 - 20 per. For all the talk of his supposed historic play the last however many games, and don't get me wrong, he had some great games last year. Not one came against a good team. I'll say the Pats game started off rough with all the drops and w/o them maybe its a different game, but the bottom line is. The Skins played 3 good teams during Cuz's run and all three pretty much ass paddled the Skins. It just leaves me with too much uncertainty. I'd tag him if we couldn't come to an agreement this year. An agreement on the right side of 19 mill a year.

All three ass paddled the Skins defense. Even with the picks, Cousins was in the top 10 percent in completions percentage BEFORE his break out game. I think too many people put too much stress on him NOT beating good teams on his own. When the reality is, we lost six games as a team, and won ten games as a team. Through out, Cousins was actually the most consistent player on the team. Yes he had some bad games as far as turn overs, but I would say 1/3 to half his turn overs were on the WR, and not the QB.

 

[Sportster 72]

I don't think that you can blame the Redskins too much on this one. Remember - pretty much nobody viewed Cousins in this light until basically the 2nd half of this season. He didn't win one game as a starter in 2014 and was benched for McCoy midway through that season. Lots of folks (myself included) would not have minded him moving on to another team until we saw a different side of him after the Bucs game this season.

You were also talking about a different FO at the time, and until this past offseason RG3 was very much still in play. The entire scenario on this one changed dramatically after late Oct of 2015. As recently as the Jets game (a week before the Bucs game) numerous folks were ready to write off Cousins. This is one of the more dramatic transformations in the NFL (& hopefully it isn't a fluke).

.
I never wrote him off. The Pats knew he was better in training camp 2014. His own players knew it also. Ask Garcon. I think the Shanahan's knew he was better but they had to play Griffin.

The arguement I would have made is he probably wouldn't have signed before this past year because he would have wanted to go somewhere that he had a chance to play when his first contract was up.

All that being said we are a week away from tag date so I think you will start to see contracts signed. I was watching the Caps tonight and saw the crawl on the screen and a couple of players were signed today. Closer we get to March 1 the more urgency there is for players to sign.

 

[ehb5]

So the question becomes.. are you really willing to forgo 2-3 players salaries over the next year or two in order to make Kirk prove it wasnt a fluke? IF so, fine. But the reality is, unless Kirk is asking for a $120 million plus type deal, you can always structure the contract where it takes care of the player, leaves the team outs AND still leaves some flex room in the next two years.

All three ass paddled the Skins defense. Even with the picks, Cousins was in the top 10 percent in completions percentage BEFORE his break out game. I think too many people put too much stress on him NOT beating good teams on his own. When the reality is, we lost six games as a team, and won ten games as a team. Through out, Cousins was actually the most consistent player on the team. Yes he had some bad games as far as turn overs, but I would say 1/3 to half his turn overs were on the WR, and not the QB.

I actually kind of agree that the whole good teams thing gets a little overstated but to say he was our most consistent player just isn't true. And even if 1/3 to half of his ints weren't his fault (which I highly doubt) he had plenty of throws that should have/could have been picked. Fact is we saw some good things and some bad things from him last year. Which is why it's important we don't screw ourselves with this deal (not saying I think we will).

 

[Sharkinva]

I actually kind of agree that the whole good teams thing gets a little overstated but to say he was our most consistent player just isn't true. And even if 1/3 to half of his ints weren't his fault (which I highly doubt) he had plenty of throws that should have/could have been picked. Fact is we saw some good things and some bad things from him last year. Which is why it's important we don't screw ourselves with this deal (not saying I think we will).

Reality check... QB throws for 30 TD's 19 INT's and the team go's 11-5, no one gives a shit. He does the same and the team go's 5-11, people want to hang the QB out to dry. Kirk also threw quite a few balls that WRs missed on, popped up in the air, or other wise screwed the pooch that should have gone for big yardage gains or TD's.

 

[ehb5]

Reality check... QB throws for 30 TD's 19 INT's and the team go's 11-5, no one gives a shit. He does the same and the team go's 5-11, people want to hang the QB out to dry. Kirk also threw quite a few balls that WRs missed on, popped up in the air, or other wise screwed the pooch that should have gone for big yardage gains or TD's.

What's your point? What does record have to do with this? And who's hanging him out to dry?

 

[Sharkinva]

What's your point? What does record have to do with this? And who's hanging him out to dry?

Many have said Kirk doesnt deserve to get paid because he has not beaten a team with a winning record. So record has alot to do with it.

 

[ehb5]

Many have said Kirk doesnt deserve to get paid because he has not beaten a team with a winning record. So record has alot to do with it.

Ah gotcha. I dont get that argument either. Now how he performs against good defenses is a different case but thats not what people usually bring up. (And off the top of my head I dont even know if there wasa notable difference between his performance against good and bad defenses).

 

[Sharkinva]

Ah gotcha. I dont get that argument either. Now how he performs against good defenses is a different case but thats not what people usually bring up. (And off the top of my head I dont even know if there wasa notable difference between his performance against good and bad defenses).

Thats because aside from 3 actual bad games, there wasnt really a difference in his performance between good defenses and bad defenses. Yes he had better stats against "BAD" defenses. But if you look at his season over all, he actually didnt do bad against the good defenses.

 

[ehb5]

Thats because aside from 3 actual bad games, there wasnt really a difference in his performance between good defenses and bad defenses. Yes he had better stats against "BAD" defenses. But if you look at his season over all, he actually didnt do bad against the good defenses.

And to be fair, you kinda should have better stats against bad defenses, no matter how good you are.

 

[Sharkinva]

And to be fair, you kinda should have better stats against bad defenses, no matter how good you are.

Agreed. But if you also have decent stats against the good defenses, it all averages out in the end. If you complete 65-70% of your passes more often than not, but the defense gives up 270 yards plus a game and you have no ground attack, its hard to say its all or even mostly on the QB. I agree he is no Cam Newton, but then again I wouldnt want Newton as you know.

 

[Breed]

All three ass paddled the Skins defense. Even with the picks, Cousins was in the top 10 percent in completions percentage BEFORE his break out game. I think too many people put too much stress on him NOT beating good teams on his own. When the reality is, we lost six games as a team, and won ten games as a team. Through out, Cousins was actually the most consistent player on the team. Yes he had some bad games as far as turn overs, but I would say 1/3 to half his turn overs were on the WR, and not the QB.

10 points scored against NE, 16 points scored against Carolina with one TD coming on a KO Ret, 18 points scored against the Packers. The offense wasn't all that impressive either.

I'd say Reed and Trent were the Skins most consistent players from wire to wire.

Lets just say I disagree, very vehemently in fact, with your allocation of blame far as the turnovers go.

Far as the winning and losing as a team. Sure, but the game is set up now in such a way that whether they deserve it or not. QBs get all the shine. That in large part is why Cuz can ask for the money he's asking for. I think he showed enough to get it though.

 

[j_y19]

10 points scored against NE, 16 points scored against Carolina with one TD coming on a KO Ret, 18 points scored against the Packers. The offense wasn't all that impressive either.

I'd say Reed and Trent were the Skins most consistent players from wire to wire.

Lets just say I disagree, very vehemently in fact, with your allocation of blame far as the turnovers go.

Far as the winning and losing as a team. Sure, but the game is set up now in such a way that whether they deserve it or not. QBs get all the shine. That in large part is why Cuz can ask for the money he's asking for. I think he showed enough to get it though.

And what choice do we have? We either take a risk on a guy that has shown he can play but has yet to do it for an extended period or we go back into the qb roulette game. This, we all know too well, is a crap shoot.

 

[Breed]

And what choice do we have? We either take a risk on a guy that has shown he can play but has yet to do it for an extended period or we go back into the qb roulette game. This, we all know too well, is a crap shoot.

Pay him a multi-year contract in the neighborhood of 80 mill - 100 mill with a significant amount of that guaranteed and hope he works out.

Tag him and if he shows himself worthy kick in with that multi-year contract which will probably be in the neighborhood of 100+ mill this time around. If he doesn't show himself to be worthy of a mega-multi-year deal. Deal with him accordingly in line with how he performed during the season..

Don't pay him and then trade him or cut him.

Those are the choices as I see em.

 

[j_y19]

Pay him a multi-year contract in the neighborhood of 80 mill - 100 mill with a significant amount of that guaranteed and hope he works out.

Tag him and if he shows himself worthy kick in with that multi-year contract which will probably be in the neighborhood of 100+ mill this time around. If he doesn't show himself to be worthy of a mega-multi-year deal. Deal with him accordingly in line with how he performed during the season..

Don't pay him and then trade him or cut him.

Those are the choices as I see em.

Door #1 for me, monte.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

.
I never wrote him off. The Pats knew he was better in training camp 2014. His own players knew it also. Ask Garcon. I think the Shanahan's knew he was better but they had to play Griffin.

The arguement I would have made is he probably wouldn't have signed before this past year because he would have wanted to go somewhere that he had a chance to play when his first contract was up.

All that being said we are a week away from tag date so I think you will start to see contracts signed. I was watching the Caps tonight and saw the crawl on the screen and a couple of players were signed today. Closer we get to March 1 the more urgency there is for players to sign.

Even if you didn't write Cousins off I don't think that most folks outside of Redskins Park viewed him as a top performed until the 2nd half of the past season. There really was no reason to re-sign him prior to the past season unless it was for a relatively low contract (which he would not have signed for numerous reasons).

The current contract situation with Cousins is likely where he would be with most teams. This isn't a perfect world. You kind of get penalized for having success & there are no risk free decisions. They likely will roll the dice with Cousins & sign him to a long term deal sometime over the next few months.

All of these counter arguments about lack of a long term track record, failure to beat winning teams, etc don't really matter that much. The reason you sign him long term is because of what many people here ask all of the time - what better options exist at this time? Finding a franchise QB is a crapshoot & when you have a shot at it you take it & hope for the best. The Redskins will try to build outs into the contract but that will be a little tricky. I have faith that they will work this out relatively soon.

 

[Sportster 72]

The point I have always made and will always make is whomever decided was terrible and wasn't worth resigning did so over 10 games (approx.) over three years. I get that fans would do that. I don't get that football people would do that. Now after one year I wouldn't label him a star. There is the rub. Maybe he is somewhere in between the two. I am guessing at the very least or very most depending on others point of view he will get tagged and they will have one more year to evaluate him.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

The point I have always made and will always make is whomever decided was terrible and wasn't worth resigning did so over 10 games (approx.) over three years. I get that fans would do that. I don't get that football people would do that. Now after one year I wouldn't label him a star. There is the rub. Maybe he is somewhere in between the two. I am guessing at the very least or very most depending on others point of view he will get tagged and they will have one more year to evaluate him.

Well - prior to the last year those football folks weren't the greatest in terms of personnel evaluation - nuff said.

My guess is that they don't go with the franchise tag (not the one that extends through the season). There are too many negatives to that situation. My guess would be that they franchise tag him while they work out the true extension in the next few months.

 

[reptec101]

Im all for a tag. Both sides get something they want. Another year to evaluate and on the flip,,, a boat load of money. My guess they'll tag and work out a deal before the season with easy outs and great incentives. IMO this dude is a heck of a true style QB with great upside. They better not screw this one up.

 

[Breed]

Door #1 for me, monte.

I hear ya, homey.