What The Fitzpatrick Contract MAY Mean For Cousins Going Forward

[redskinsfan]

Greetings after emerging from my proverbial rock!

When Brock Osweiler signed his four-year, $72M deal for a body of work that included only seven (mostly poor) starts, the NFL market looked to that as the baseline for any QB negotiations. This was especially true for Kirk Cousins, whose track record may not have been sufficient according to some, was clearly longer and far much better than Osweiler's. At that point, you couldn't blame Cousins' camp for using that as a minimum for long-term contract negotiations and, in turn, blanche at the relatively insulting $16M AAV deal the Redskins were offering.

But then came Fitzpatrick's contract. It's essentially a one-year deal for $12M with $3M that could be added in incentives. For someone whose experience and production far exceed that of Osweiler, this should've come as a huge dressing down for Fitzpatrick. But this market-bending should also have landed like a load of bricks to Cousins. To be sure, he can always argue that the market for HIM works through the prism of the franchise tag or tags that have or could be placed on him. That may work for guaranteed money in any deal he'll strike with the team, but it doesn't necessarily apply to AAV and how the deal is otherwise structured.

This, of course, is all premature since there are a lot of variables between now and the next time the parties sit down for contract talks next season. If Kirk balls out, which I hope he does, Osweiler's deal will be the least of the Redskins' concerns. Other considerations involve cap considerations in signing other people like those on contract years (e.g., Chris Baker and D-Jax) and extending some like Morgan Moses and Bashaud Breeland. The point, however, is that, as Fitzpatrick's deal completely bucked what appeared to be the market trend for paying QBs, that factor -- which often is the strongest at play in any negotiations -- may not be as strong as some may originally have thought.

 

[deanpet21]

Greetings after emerging from my proverbial rock!

When Brock Osweiler signed his four-year, $72M deal for a body of work that included only seven (mostly poor) starts, the NFL market looked to that as the baseline for any QB negotiations. This was especially true for Kirk Cousins, whose track record may not have been sufficient according to some, was clearly longer and far much better than Osweiler's. At that point, you couldn't blame Cousins' camp for using that as a minimum for long-term contract negotiations and, in turn, blanche at the relatively insulting $16M AAV deal the Redskins were offering.

But then came Fitzpatrick's contract. It's essentially a one-year deal for $12M with $3M that could be added in incentives. For someone whose experience and production far exceed that of Osweiler, this should've come as a huge dressing down for Fitzpatrick. But this market-bending should also have landed like a load of bricks to Cousins. To be sure, he can always argue that the market for HIM works through the prism of the franchise tag or tags that have or could be placed on him. That may work for guaranteed money in any deal he'll strike with the team, but it doesn't necessarily apply to AAV and how the deal is otherwise structured.

This, of course, is all premature since there are a lot of variables between now and the next time the parties sit down for contract talks next season. If Kirk balls out, which I hope he does, Osweiler's deal will be the least of the Redskins' concerns. Other considerations involve cap considerations in signing other people like those on contract years (e.g., Chris Baker and D-Jax) and extending some like Morgan Moses and Bashaud Breeland. The point, however, is that, as Fitzpatrick's deal completely bucked what appeared to be the market trend for paying QBs, that factor -- which often is the strongest at play in any negotiations -- may not be as strong as some may originally have thought.

Fitz age has a lot to do with it. If KC plays well this year and wins a playoff game he could be asking in the Luck territory. 22-24M will be his ask I believe.

 

[reptec101]

Its simple. KC plays like he did last half of last year he'll demand and probably get Luck type of money. If he plays like he did in the first 6 or so games of last year he'll probably get lowballed and go elsewhere. Welcome Fitz to our camp then.

 

[j_y19]

Fitz age has a lot to do with it. If KC plays well this year and wins a playoff game he could be asking in the Luck territory. 22-24M will be his ask I believe.

I agree. Fitz is 35. Contracts are based what you are expected to do, not what you have done (in theory). KC, if he pans out, has a full decade of playing in front of him. Fitz, who is average at best, might have another year or two. Of course the Redskins will attempt to use Fitz's contract as a basis, but it won't, and shouldn't, fly. This is all a moot point. IF KC has a year anything like he had over the last 10 games of last year, he writes his own ticket and the Redskins will pay it. If he regresses to the play he had in earlier seasons, then he becomes a backup somewhere else at much less play. The real nightmare is if he plays OK, maybe top 15-20 in the league. Thats where it gets contentious.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

Be more interesting to see what a Tyrod contract would look like if they manage a LTD as a measure of market.

 

[skinsdad62]

tyrod's might be more of a gage but fitz's deal means nothing

 

[redskinsfan]

I seriously doubt that Fitz's contract means nothing. Yes, he's 35, but the Jets' window to win anything big is closing. That would normally mean that a team like them would overpay what would prove to be a key cog to their success last year. If any factor unique to the Jets drove Fitz's contract, it would be their cap situation. Fitz's deal should've been worth at least the one Bradford got, which is also a two-year deal with a one-year opt out. But the Jets actually played this one smart and showed that you can have deals that buck the market.

 

[SteelersPride]

Its simple. KC plays like he did last half of last year he'll demand and probably get Luck type of money. If he plays like he did in the first 6 or so games of last year he'll probably get lowballed and go elsewhere. Welcome Fitz to our camp then.

guys , cousins had 3 games with multiple TD passes, and hes gonna get luck money? come on

 

[redskinsfan]

guys , cousins had 3 games with multiple TD passes, and hes gonna get luck money? come on

Kirk, right now, isn't on Luck's level -- and he may never be. But characterizing his body of work the way you did is really misleading. Despite having no running game, an LG-Center combo, and spotty defense, he went 7-3 down the stretch, passing for 23 TDs and only three picks, and averaged 270 yards per game. The reason why he'll get Luck money next year if he comes close to what he did last year is not necessarily due to his production per se but because that's what the market will demand. The only saving grace for the Redskins is that they can point to market-bending deals like the one Fitzpatrick got. But if he does ball out, Kirk's camp will be looking at Luck's deal as a starting point.

Fortunately for the Redskins, Kirk is not some greed bag. While it's not accurate to say that money isn't important to him, it's not nearly as significant as it is to him than it is to others. And, as others pointed out, if everything is basically equal, why would he want to bolt from a situation he's familiar with -- and presumably is having success in?

 

[Sportster 72]

Luck is hoping he can play as well this year as Cousins did last year. He certainly didn't last year.

 

[SteelersPride]

Kirk, right now, isn't on Luck's level -- and he may never be. But characterizing his body of work the way you did is really misleading. Despite having no running game, an LG-Center combo, and spotty defense, he went 7-3 down the stretch, passing for 23 TDs and only three picks, and averaged 270 yards per game. The reason why he'll get Luck money next year if he comes close to what he did last year is not necessarily due to his production per se but because that's what the market will demand. The only saving grace for the Redskins is that they can point to market-bending deals like the one Fitzpatrick got. But if he does ball out, Kirk's camp will be looking at Luck's deal as a starting point.

Fortunately for the Redskins, Kirk is not some greed bag. While it's not accurate to say that money isn't important to him, it's not nearly as significant as it is to him than it is to others. And, as others pointed out, if everything is basically equal, why would he want to bolt from a situation he's familiar with -- and presumably is having success in?

I suppose they could, yeah your right

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Saying Kirk is not greedy is naive. Every athlete is greedy at contract time, as they should be. The fact that he turned down their offers shows that. But it makes sense for the team to do this tag, again he has had like 9 good/great games in his entire career.

 

[redskinsfan]

Saying Kirk is not greedy is naive. Every athlete is greedy at contract time, as they should be. The fact that he turned down their offers shows that. But it makes sense for the team to do this tag, again he has had like 9 good/great games in his entire career.

I don't see why it's naive. I think it's factual. There's a difference between trying to greedily reach for dollars and demand a contract that comports with the respect you believe you're due. Kirk falls in the latter category and is one of the very few people I'd say this about.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

My take is that it may or may not be the truth with regards to Kirk (who knows what he really thinks, what is known is that he's the ultimate diplomat)

His agent however is going to hardball for the best possible contract for his client, as he should.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

I don't see why it's naive. I think it's factual. There's a difference between trying to greedily reach for dollars and demand a contract that comports with the respect you believe you're due. Kirk falls in the latter category and is one of the very few people I'd say this about.

Look I love Kirk too. But what has he done that would lead you to conclude that money is not as important to him as it is to others as you have claimed? All he has done to date is play under his first contract, where he had no choice, and then turn down every offer the Redskins have made as he searched for the best deal he could make. He was willing to bet on himself on a one year franchise contract. Why? To get more money later. If loyalty was more important to him than money he would have worked out a deal with the team before it came to this. Instead the 2 sides were so far apart the franchise tag was the only option agreeable to both sides.

Again not faulting him at all. He has earned this right. But saying a player is not greedy is fantalk and just not backed by the facts or history.

 

[redskinsfan]

Look I love Kirk too. But what has he done that would lead you to conclude that money is not as important to him as it is to others as you have claimed? All he has done to date is play under his first contract, where he had no choice, and then turn down every offer the Redskins have made as he searched for the best deal he could make. He was willing to bet on himself on a one year franchise contract. Why? To get more money later. If loyalty was more important to him than money he would have worked out a deal with the team before it came to this. Instead the 2 sides were so far apart the franchise tag was the only option agreeable to both sides.

Again not faulting him at all. He has earned this right. But saying a player is not greedy is fantalk and just not backed by the facts or history.

First is he didn't hold out when he got tagged but signed it immediately. He also eschews materialism and leads a conspicuously modest lifestyle. Kirk has also consistently professed that his goal in contract negotiations isn't a deal that will set the market but one which will make him feel wanted. This all is wholly consistent with his deep, abiding Christian faith which preaches against greed and instead teaches its followers to seek and pay a fair wage.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

First is he didn't hold out when he got tagged but signed it immediately. He also eschews materialism and leads a conspicuously modest lifestyle. Kirk has also consistently professed that his goal in contract negotiations isn't a deal that will set the market but one which will make him feel wanted. This all is wholly consistent with his deep, abiding Christian faith which preaches against greed and instead teaches its followers to seek and pay a fair wage.

You speak like a fan. Why would he hold out? He had no leverage and said he was fine making over $20 million as he bet on himself for an even bigger payday. The CBA says if a team wants to franchise you they can do just that. Holding out was not an option unless he was prepared to sit out the year.

Just because he does not wear gold chains or wants to start a record label does not mean he won't try to make the most money he can possibly make. Again you are being incredibly naive if you think otherwise. Everything he has done this entire off season backs the position that he is looking to make the most money possible. And again nothing at all wrong with that.

 

[Sportster 72]

Have to agree. When I read your first post saying he doesn't care about money. No offense but you, me or anyone else on here has no clue whether that is true or not.

What we do know is he didn't sign for the lesser amount so he obviously cares to some extent.

 

[redskinsfan]

I didn't evervsay he didn't care about money. What I did say was that he wasn't greedy. Big difference. And I believe that the points I ticked off amply demonstrate that.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

Back up QB money...Foles' deal