Redskins' Kirk Cousins: Still far apart on extension terms

[Sharkinva]

I take that back. If you wana trot out colt mccoy or sudfield we don't really have to.

Cousins costs a lot of $$ and a rookie would cost a lot of draft capital. No matter what we do, we're gonna have to give up resources.

true, but if we give up the money, we can use the draft capitol to improve other areas of the team. If we burn the draft capitol, we are basically doing the same thing we have been doing for the past 20 years... Chasing the elite QB at the expense of other positions/needs.

 

[deanpet21]

plus blaming the agent too.

 

[Sharkinva]

IM still waiting to an answer to the question...

How badly does this team have to finish in order for us to have a shot at Darnold??

And I guess the follow up question would be, would you prefer to see us in a position to draft Darnold.. or does it not matter as long as we arent making Kirk the highest paid QB in the league?

 

[Ruzious]

The Cowboys last 2 qualtiy QB's have been undrafted and a 3rd rounder who stepped right in and was better than Cousins. It's usually not that easy, but getting a little above league average starting QB ain't rocket surgery. Note even brain science. Course... it helps if you have a good GM!

 

[ehb5]

true, but if we give up the money, we can use the draft capitol to improve other areas of the team. If we burn the draft capitol, we are basically doing the same thing we have been doing for the past 20 years... Chasing the elite QB at the expense of other positions/needs.

And if we use the draft capital we can use the money to improve other areas of the team.

Not saying that's what we should do but either way resources are being spent on a qb somewhere.

 

[Sharkinva]

The Cowboys last 2 qualtiy QB's have been undrafted and a 3rd rounder who stepped right in and was better than Cousins. It's usually not that easy, but getting a little above league average starting QB ain't rocket surgery. Note even brain science. Course... it helps if you have a good GM!

Our Current quality QB was a 4th rounder. Yet people are saying we should ditch him and go back into the pool. I admit, it would be great to have an elite QB. But I think the team is served better sticking with the quality QB we have and using the draft resources to fill the holes we still have on the team.

 

[Sharkinva]

And if we use the draft capital we can use the money to improve other areas of the team.

Not saying that's what we should do but either way resources are being spent on a qb somewhere.

I will point out again... we been trying to go that route for 20 years. Is Kirk perfect?? NO. Is the team better off signing him long term and using the draft capital else where??

 

[ehb5]

I will point out again... we been trying to go that route for 20 years. Is Kirk perfect?? NO. Is the team better off signing him long term and using the draft capital else where??

Like I said. I wasn't saying what we should do just that either way we spend capital on a QB and either way we can spend the other kind of capital on the rest of the roster. What we've done in the past is irrelevant.

 

[gkekoa]

The article really blames the Redskins. How can you blame the agent for taking care of his client? 44 million over the last 2 seasons in guaranteed money and he hasn't hit FA. He will likely see 100 million guaranteed.

 

[Sharkinva]

Like I said. I wasn't saying what we should do just that either way we spend capital on a QB and either way we can spend the other kind of capital on the rest of the roster. What we've done in the past is irrelevant.

How exactly is it irrelevant?? If you have tried something multiple times, and it has failed... and you now have another viable option.... why continue to do things in a way that has failed hoping for a different outcome??


Its not like we are saying resign Jamarcus Russell and make him the highest paid QB in the league.

Remember this time last year people were saying Watson was a lock for #1 pick in the draft and a potential franchise QB. What happens if we decide we are going to play Kirk on the tag with the intention of drafting another QB in 2018, and the QB class turns out to be similar to the one we just had?? Still think we might be better off simply because we didnt pay to keep Cousins??

 

[deanpet21]

The article really blames the Redskins. How can you blame the agent for taking care of his client? 44 million over the last 2 seasons in guaranteed money and he hasn't hit FA. He will likely see 100 million guaranteed.

b/c the agent is holding up the long term deal. The Redskins are not going to overpay for average talent. Plsu if he hits Fa and the 49ers have a top pick in the draft its cheaper to draft a qb than to sign KC. 100mg money. lol. That is insane.

 

[ehb5]

How exactly is it irrelevant?? If you have tried something multiple times, and it has failed... and you now have another viable option.... why continue to do things in a way that has failed hoping for a different outcome??

Ive seen this brought up a lot both about us taking a QB in the draft and about us drafting RBs late and it doesnt make any sense. Why are we only considering this organization? Joe Gibbs drafting Jason Campbell has as much to do with our odds of finding a QB in the draft as Ted Thompson drafting Aaron Rodgers does. The fact that we as an individual organization have been unlucky with it is irrelevant. Theres nothing inherently making us suck at drafting QBs that carries forward to the next time we do it. Youre argument here is like saying well shit Ive bet heads the last 5 times and lost so Ill be sure never to bet heads again. Obviously drafting a QB isnt some simple 50/50 coin toss but the idea is the same.

Its not like we are saying resign Jamarcus Russell and make him the highest paid QB in the league.

Ok

Remember this time last year people were saying Watson was a lock for #1 pick in the draft and a potential franchise QB. What happens if we decide we are going to play Kirk on the tag with the intention of drafting another QB in 2018, and the QB class turns out to be similar to the one we just had?? Still think we might be better off simply because we didnt pay to keep Cousins??

Of course I remember that. Im the one who said that in another thread. I never said what we'd be better off doing. In fact I explicitly stated I wasnt saying what we should do so Im not sure what youre arguing here or trying to prove. I think you dig into trying to find meaning behind too many posts. My posts only meant what they said. I was stating a fact. Resources have to be spent on QB either way. That is undeniable.

 

[gkekoa]

b/c the agent is holding up the long term deal. The Redskins are not going to overpay for average talent. Plsu if he hits Fa and the 49ers have a top pick in the draft its cheaper to draft a qb than to sign KC. 100mg money. lol. That is insane.

So it is the agent's fault that he wants his client to be paid according to market demands? You think his agent should have him sign a LTD for less with us than sign a big deal with another team?

What are the odds a rookie QB will turn out as good as KC is? They are extremely low.

I think you misunderstand the guaranteed money. I do not believe his next contract will have 100 million in guarantees. I do believe if you add his guaranteed money in his next contract to the guaranteed money of this current franchise guarantee, it will be very close to 100 million.

To think it won't is INSANE.

 

[Stymietee]

I honestly believe that SM and I are on the same page when it come to evaluating Cousins. Unfortunately, many here also unwittingly have evaluated Cousins the same way by stating things like..."the team needs to be improved around him." While this is true, and speaks to the competitive health of the team, there is no connection between making statements like that and the singular evaluation of the player.

Joe Gibbs in all of his glorious Super Bowl time as head coach here, taught us that you could take very average QB's and win by having superior talent around them. Although a different time, it is possible that, this is the plan going forward. If it is, then, Cousins is our guy, and should be made to realize that despite this new era of QB centered play, it will be the team, built specifically to win Super Bowls, because of his limitations that will lead the way. Accordingly, his pay, despite the market, must be based upon his position as a supporting player in a lead role, on a team with superior talent.

However, If the Super Bowl aspirations of this organization are going to be based upon the rising talents of its QB, in a QB centered era, where there's pretty average, not great, talent around him, and salaries reflecting that talent, we must come to the realization that thus far his skill level with such a supporting cast has yielded 9-7 and 8-7-1 seasons. Fairly or not QB's are judged (not evaluated) on wins and losses. The evaluation process must conclude with an answer to one simple question.....What type of QB do we have?

I don't believe that there's a creditable argument against Kirk being much more in line with the Gibbs era guy.

 

[gkekoa]

Has the offense under KC been good enough to easily make the playoffs? Yes. The defense has been lacking. Have we been underspending on defense? No...we have been underperforming.

 

[Stymietee]

Were the offenses under Theisman, Rypien and Williams good enough to win Super Bowls? What does it say about these guys as QB's when the subject is singularly evaluating them? Clearly, it was the talent around them whether over or under performing that accounted for a lot of their success.

(Answer: Nothing)

 

[SoCalWizFan]

I honestly believe that SM and I are on the same page when it come to evaluating Cousins. Unfortunately, many here also unwittingly have evaluated Cousins the same way by stating things like..."the team needs to be improved around him." While this is true, and speaks to the competitive health of the team, there is no connection between making statements like that and the singular evaluation of the player.

Joe Gibbs in all of his glorious Super Bowl time as head coach here, taught us that you could take very average QB's and win by having superior talent around them. Although a different time, it is possible that, this is the plan going forward. If it is, then, Cousins is our guy, and should be made to realize that despite this new era of QB centered play, it will be the team, built specifically to win Super Bowls, because of his limitations that will lead the way. Accordingly, his pay, despite the market, must be based upon his position as a supporting player in a lead role, on a team with superior talent.

However, If the Super Bowl aspirations of this organization are going to be based upon the rising talents of its QB, in a QB centered era, where there's pretty average, not great, talent around him, and salaries reflecting that talent, we must come to the realization that thus far his skill level with such a supporting cast has yielded 9-7 and 8-7-1 seasons. Fairly or not QB's are judged (not evaluated) on wins and losses. The evaluation process must conclude with an answer to one simple question.....What type of QB do we have?

I don't believe that there's a creditable argument against Kirk being much more in line with the Gibbs era guy.

So you actually believe that a QB (or any player) will just accept a much lower figure since he will somehow realize that he is just a supporting player & not worthy of the higher pay? In what universe does this occur? This is especially true if the player - Cousins in this case - knows that he can make much more money by playing for another team. Also factor in that he already has made $44M in guaranteed money which kind of counters your position.

As much as I was a huge SM backer I would also point out the QB evaluation is not necessarily one of his strengths. After all - he was the major reason why the 49ers selected (& subsequently unloaded) Alex Smith instead of Aaron Rodgers. So I would not take this article as gospel. I would trust Gruden a lot more in this case & he seems to be 100% in Cousins' corner.

I am not proclaiming that Cousins will be elite moving forward just that they need to gamble on him long term since the other options are shaky. I think that you are naïve if you expect that this can be done by being cheap & again they have already invested $44 M in him. We will see.

BTW - 9-7 and 8-7-1 are much better than you portray especially with a subpar defense & somewhat shaky running game. These were the best consecutive seasons for the Redskins in a very long time. Also - you have to look at those Gibbs' QBs individually - each is a very different case. Williams - at that stage - was a guy that played well for a handful of games - nothing more. Rypien had a lights out season & was much more than a beneficiary of his surrounding cast for a short while. Injuries & turnovers (neither of which are a current problem for Cousins) subsequently did him in. Theismann was actually a very good QB but injuries and age caught up with him.

You also called it - this was a much different era & the running game was a much, much more important factor back then. To compare the two eras is laughable. They just need to extend Cousins - period - regardless of the opinions of SM.

 

[Stymietee]

So you actually believe that a QB (or any player) will just accept a much lower figure since he will somehow realize that he is just a supporting player & not worthy of the higher pay? In what universe does this occur? This is especially true if the player - Cousins in this case - knows that he can make much more money by playing for another team. Also factor in that he already has made $44M in guaranteed money which kind of counters your position.

As much as I was a huge SM backer I would also point out the QB evaluation is not necessarily one of his strengths. After all - he was the major reason why the 49ers selected (& subsequently unloaded) Alex Smith instead of Aaron Rodgers. So I would not take this article as gospel. I would trust Gruden a lot more in this case & he seems to be 100% in Cousins' corner.

I am not proclaiming that Cousins will be elite moving forward just that they need to gamble on him long term since the other options are shaky. I think that you are naïve if you expect that this can be done by being cheap & again they have already invested $44 M in him. We will see.

BTW - 9-7 and 8-7-1 are much better than you portray especially with a subpar defense & somewhat shaky running game. These were the best consecutive seasons for the Redskins in a very long time. Also - you have to look at those Gibbs' QBs individually - each is a very different case. Williams - at that stage - was a guy that played well for a handful of games - nothing more. Rypien had a lights out season & was much more than a beneficiary of his surrounding cast for a short while. Injuries & turnovers (neither of which are a current problem for Cousins) subsequently did him in. Theismann was actually a very good QB but injuries and age caught up with him.

You also called it - this was a much different era & the running game was a much, much more important factor back then. To compare the two eras is laughable. They just need to extend Cousins - period - regardless of the opinions of SM.

Let me take them one at a time in order.

"So you actually believe that a QB (or any player) will just accept a much lower figure since he will somehow realize that he is just a supporting player & not worthy of the higher pay? In what universe does this occur? This is especially true if the player - Cousins in this case - knows that he can make much more money by playing for another team. Also factor in that he already has made $44M in guaranteed money which kind of counters your position.


ANS: NOPE, I don't believe this, nor do I believe that Kirk or any other player will devalue their worth even if it's warranted. The universe that it does occur in is the one that Bruce and Dan creates when offering 4 million less than the market suggests. Your argument is with them not me, I just pointed out what we all know to be the facts as they currently stand.

As much as I was a huge SM backer I would also point out the QB evaluation is not necessarily one of his strengths. After all - he was the major reason why the 49ers selected (& subsequently unloaded) Alex Smith instead of Aaron Rodgers. So I would not take this article as gospel. I would trust Gruden a lot more in this case & he seems to be 100% in Cousins' corner.

ANS: I would love to read the link where Gruden has offered an evaluation of Cousins. I'm really not taking this article as gospel, however I am using my own evaluative skills, which, in reading the many posts by others, are in very short supply in any thread mentioning Kirk Cousins.

I am not proclaiming that Cousins will be elite moving forward just that they need to gamble on him long term since the other options are shaky. I think that you are naïve if you expect that this can be done by being cheap & again they have already invested $44 M in him. We will see.

ANS: There's a reason why many are hesitant to proclaim Cousins a future "elite" QB, and that's because Kirk has limitations that prevent him from becoming what some call "elite." Can he overcome them? I don't think that's possible, even if he stays in the league for another ten years. My opinion? of course, but at least I've done a pretty objective evaluation of him. BTW: it says a lot when there is a clear market set for players with Kirk's numbers and the offer is less than that which the market says it should be. Could it be because, their evaluation of him leads to the obvious conclusion that building the team to Super Bowl caliber is the better way to go?

BTW - 9-7 and 8-7-1 are much better than you portray especially with a subpar defense & somewhat shaky running game. These were the best consecutive seasons for the Redskins in a very long time. Also - you have to look at those Gibbs' QBs individually - each is a very different case. Williams - at that stage - was a guy that played well for a handful of games - nothing more. Rypien had a lights out season & was much more than a beneficiary of his surrounding cast for a short while. Injuries & turnovers (neither of which are a current problem for Cousins) subsequently did him in. Theismann was actually a very good QB but injuries and age caught up with him.

ANS: Now you're either fuckin' with me or dabbling with alternative facts. Did we not end up with those records? Is it not true that every team in the league can play the woulda, shoulda, coulda game? Having a better defense is NOT an evaluation of the QB...but it is an evaluation of the team. There's no disagreement that these were the best two consecutive seasons in a very long time, the end result was one playoff appearance and relevancy to long suffering fans/followers, but candidly, barely if at all relevant in the grand scheme of all things NFL.

BTW: If you are able to see Cousins as being more in line with this era's "elite" QB's, who, because of their skillset, make others around them better rather than in line with the aforementioned QB's of our past, then I'll respect your opinion, just vehemently disagree with that because as you've pointed out, with a better defense, not a better QB things might have been different.

 

[Sportster 72]

When did Joe Gibbs coach in the salary cap and free agency era?

Apples and oranges.

 

[Sportster 72]

Here is another point I have made for 2 years. After the 1998 season the Caps decided to let Trent Green become a FA because they didn't want to pay what he was asking. This in part was during the time when Redskin ownership was up for grabs or about to be up for grabs.

Who has been better than or equal to Green since 1998? Meanwhile we have paid guys like Fat Albert, Archuleta, Deion etc. etc.

As I have said time and again I have no idea what the FO will end up doing. I guess my question is if we should get another good QB, do we tag him once or twice and let him go as soon as he plays well? WTH apparently these QBs are easy to acquire. We have 18 years worth during the FA era to prove that.