Cousins Doesn't Deserve A Longterm Contract

[ehb5]

So you are saying Kirk isnt good enough and we should keep looking.

So... whats good enough?? Seriously.

When and where did I say that?

 

[gkekoa]

I will say the following g statements...

1) if we are running this offense, there are not 5 QBs in the league I would rather have.

2) I never thought Hallett was a sad as some seem to remember; however, I fine getting rid of Barry or giving him one more season. I wanted Wade Phillips a while back and I don't want Rex.

 

[UK Cowboy]

Cousins is a good player, but not the sharpest tool in the shed. He doesn't want the tag, he wants a long term deal. So after he plays a great game in a big win, there's a couple of ways he can go.....

Walk over to the GM, shake his hand, and tell him he only wants to be a Redskin and let's get this done.

Walk over to his GM, get in his face, yell how do you like me now, and rub his head like a basset hound....on national tv

Say what you want about Romo, but he gets along well with his GM. Worked out pretty well financially

 

[Sharkinva]

When and where did I say that?

my bad.... I admit YOU have never said that. But the underlying tone of some to say, we shouldnt SETTLE for stability is that Kirk isnt good enough and thus we should be searching for better.

I dont think its settling, its doing whats best for the team.

 

[Sharkinva]

I will say the following g statements...

1) if we are running this offense, there are not 5 QBs in the league I would rather have.

2) I never thought Hallett was a sad as some seem to remember; however, I fine getting rid of Barry or giving him one more season. I wanted Wade Phillips a while back and I don't want Rex.

I can name 5 I think would do better.. .but none of them are or would e available.

I can name three i think would do as good as, and maybe better. But again none of THEM would be available.

Now naming 5 that are or will be available, that would cost less, and do as well or better..... takes in a level of speculation that most should be hoping we avoid.

 

[chillerdab]

Kookie Talk. Also, irrelevant.

Cousins does deserve a long term contract, and will get one, one way or another, with the Redskins.

He is not the reason the redskins have lost any one game, and his penchant for assinine, boneheaded plays is way, way down from last year.

If the redskins could, say, stop anybody from running the ball at will, they would be comfortably in the playoffs. If the redskins could, say, stop anybody from running the ball at will AND provide a consistent pass rush, they'd be in the running for the NFC Top seed.

 

[gkekoa]

I can name 5 I think would do better.. .but none of them are or would e available.

I can name three i think would do as good as, and maybe better. But again none of THEM would be available.

Now naming 5 that are or will be available, that would cost less, and do as well or better..... takes in a level of speculation that most should be hoping we avoid.

Who are they? I am curious. I am meaning over the next 4 to 5 years.

 

[Sharkinva]

As for my five I think could outperform him in this offense

Brady
Brees
Rogers
Marriota
Wentz

As for those I think could do as good as, maybe better

Smith
Rivers
PAlmer

As for cost less, as good as or better and available???

 

[Stymietee]

1. It is not worth the time or effort to debate this when the intent is to return to a long dead issue named Griffin.

2. I have yet to see anyone debate whether or not Kirk should get a new contract, the question is for how much isn't it?

3. The above question is not with me but with the man who publicly stated that he is not willing to overpay any player...GMSM. That position which I agree with, is based on other needs that this team desperately needs. Not chasing the elite guy at that spot. Maybe they will pay Kirk but somewhere on the offensive side of the ball there will be budget constraints.

4. Characterizing what someone else expresses about a pretty good QB as unwilling to SETTLE for stability at the position, does a disservice to the greater point which is to always be in upgrade mode. It assumes wrongly that stability can ONLY come from one person on a team. This line of thinking naturally gives rise to the question regarding need to have a stable guy in the backup role and specific to this team the need to draft a QB like Sudfield. To me long term projects are a waste of draft picks and completely nullifies the concept of BPA. Best player available to do what?

 

[ehb5]

my bad.... I admit YOU have never said that. But the underlying tone of some to say, we shouldnt SETTLE for stability is that Kirk isnt good enough and thus we should be searching for better.

I dont think its settling, its doing whats best for the team.

All good. My point was just that stability for stabilitys sake is stupid. Stability if you have a good enough qb is entirely different obviously.

 

[Sharkinva]

All good. My point was just that stability for stabilitys sake is stupid. Stability if you have a good enough qb is entirely different obviously.

So the obvious elephant in the room.

Is Kirk good enough to take a shot at stability at the position? When one looks at the QB landscape, as in whats available in draft or FA, what we have on the roster aside from Kirk.

Again I have my doubts about him.... I doubt he will ever become elite. And I doubt we can ever really put the team on his shoulders with little or no help from the defense or a ground game.

But I feel relatively certain that signing him long term is not a case of stability for the sake of stability.

 

[ehb5]

So the obvious elephant in the room.

Is Kirk good enough to take a shot at stability at the position? When one looks at the QB landscape, as in whats available in draft or FA, what we have on the roster aside from Kirk.

Again I have my doubts about him.... I doubt he will ever become elite. And I doubt we can ever really put the team on his shoulders with little or no help from the defense or a ground game.

But I feel relatively certain that signing him long term is not a case of stability for the sake of stability.

Sure. I pretty much agree with what you said right here. Doubt he'll be elite and don't think he can carry the offense without weapons. But he has been pretty good for a while now. Hopefully he's good enough to win a SB. Wether he is I'm not really sure. But he's good enough to try with imo. Of course my view can always change (it has on him before) but for now I'd love to keep him*.

*Keep in mind I did also want to keep him last year too though.

 

[Stymietee]

So the obvious elephant in the room.

Is Kirk good enough to take a shot at stability at the position? When one looks at the QB landscape, as in whats available in draft or FA, what we have on the roster aside from Kirk.

Again I have my doubts about him.... I doubt he will ever become elite. And I doubt we can ever really put the team on his shoulders with little or no help from the defense or a ground game.

But I feel relatively certain that signing him long term is not a case of stability for the sake of stability.

However, it is a case of stability for the sake of becoming more stable. The exact same argument that some here were having about Moses. Yes he's better than much of what preceded him, but since everyone agrees that he is no John Jansen there is room to upgrade. If Kirk in your own words is not elite and not likely to become that, there is room to upgrade there too!

 

[Sharkinva]

However, it is a case of stability for the sake of becoming more stable. The exact same argument that some here were having about Moses. Yes he's better than much of what preceded him, but since everyone agrees that he is no John Jansen there is room to upgrade. If Kirk in your own words is not elite and not likely to become that, there is room to upgrade there too!

True... BUt IM not preaching we jettison Moses in the quest for an elite RT (if there is such a thing). To me Moses is about as average as they come. And i dont think there would be a huge drop off if say Ty Nsexy was dropped in at RT. I dare say, we might actually get better with this move. Where as, I do think if we let Kirk walk, we stand a good chance of regressing on offense. If we tag him, we stand a good chance of spinning our wheels on offense. We sign him long term, and for the next tree seasons, I think we can finally concentrate on the rest of the team... just a little.

 

[Stymietee]

True... BUt IM not preaching we jettison Moses in the quest for an elite RT (if there is such a thing). To me Moses is about as average as they come. And i dont think there would be a huge drop off if say Ty Nsexy was dropped in at RT. I dare say, we might actually get better with this move. Where as, I do think if we let Kirk walk, we stand a good chance of regressing on offense. If we tag him, we stand a good chance of spinning our wheels on offense. We sign him long term, and for the next tree seasons, I think we can finally concentrate on the rest of the team... just a little.

Can't really argue your points, especially one that suggests that somehow they let Kirk walk. That is contrary to popular opinion, entirely up to Kirk. SM has stated that he won't overpay for any player. I assume that this also applies to a pretty good one. So why is it up to Kirk and his reps? Well, what's most important to him...being a member on a championship team or breaking the budget constraints that Scott has always alluded to by asking for minimum market rate or greater? (Does anyone remember the color code that SM uses to rate players?) The last time that I remember there ever being any sort of negotiating there were at least two sides. I guess the most important questions in this regard are...1. how far will SM go to not give in to Kirk's contract demands 2. How adamant will Kirk and Co. be in seeking elite money? I don't have those answers, but my best guess is that Kirk won't settle for less than the FT and SM won't be willing to pay (and this is important) long term at those prices.

 

[Stymietee]

BTW: It would be very interesting to see where SM has Kirk rated in his color scheme! Does anyone here have information on this? If so, please do share it!

 

[Sharkinva]

Can't really argue your points, especially one that suggests that somehow they let Kirk walk. That is contrary to popular opinion, entirely up to Kirk. SM has stated that he won't overpay for any player. I assume this means a pretty good one as well but that takes us away from the point previously made. So why is it up to Kirk and his reps? Well, what's most important to him...being a member on a championship team or breaking the budget constraints that Scott has always alluded to by asking for minimum market rate or greater? (Does anyone remember the color code that SM uses to rate players?) The last time that I remember there ever being any sort of negotiating there were at least two sides. I guess the most important questions in this regard are...1. how far will SM go to not give in to Kirk's contract demands 2. How adamant will Kirk and Co. be in seeking elite money? I don't have those answers, but my best guess is that Kirk won't settle for less than the FT and SM won't be willing to pay (and this is important) long term at those prices.

So you got to ask.. whats elite money?? If they stick to the $15-17 million you favor.... thats crazy and low balling seriously. Tannehill is making $19 a year on average.. Kirk is better.

Rivers is making $20 on average... Kirk is equal.

We dont get Kirk for less than $22m a year would be my guess.

 

[Stymietee]

So you got to ask.. whats elite money?? If they stick to the $15-17 million you favor.... thats crazy and low balling seriously. Tannehill is making $19 a year on average.. Kirk is better.

Rivers is making $20 on average... Kirk is equal.

We dont get Kirk for less than $22m a year would be my guess.

Tannehill is Miami's mistake and IMHO Kirk's equal NOT Rivers.

 

[Stymietee]

Got a honey dew, back in a few!

 

[Sharkinva]

Tannehill is Miami's mistake and IMHO Kirk's equal NOT Rivers.

Again even if you are right... Tannehill is making $19m a year on average from a deal two years old. MArket value would put Kirk at $22m a year. Trying to get him for less serves little or no purpose aside from forcing the tag at $24 million.