dgreen

***OFFICIAL*** 2016 and beyond Washington Redskins Thread

1,713 posts in this topic

8 hours ago, lod001 said:

As it stands now the most likely scenario is that cousins forces them to franchise tag him for 2017 and then he walks in 2018 over to SF and Shanahan for big $. He screws the team that refused to sign him in the process. There is no way they franchise tag him a 3rd time. The cost is out of the realm of possibilities. Cousins holds all the cards right now. If he performs well in 2017, he screws this team over and they go back to being a bottom feeder. In a league where top QBs are the hardest thing to acquire, these morons are going to let one walk out the door. It's unprecedented. 

You've made this same point, almost the exact same post, about half a dozen times. We get it. You made your opinion clear. Is there some compulsion to post the same thing over and over ad naseum? It's like sitting through those Chevy commercials over and over and over and over....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

SpotracVerified account‏@spotrac

Assuming another tag, Kirk Cousins ($23.9M), Josh Norman ($20M), & Trent Williams ($15.1M) will account for $59M (35%) of the #Redskins cap.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DallasDMac said:

You've made this same point, almost the exact same post, about half a dozen times. We get it. You made your opinion clear. Is there some compulsion to post the same thing over and over ad naseum? It's like sitting through those Chevy commercials over and over and over and over....

He used to be FavreCo. It's what he does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, lod001 said:

As it stands now the most likely scenario is that cousins forces them to franchise tag him for 2017 and then he walks in 2018 over to SF and Shanahan for big $. He screws the team that refused to sign him in the process. There is no way they franchise tag him a 3rd time. The cost is out of the realm of possibilities. Cousins holds all the cards right now. If he performs well in 2017, he screws this team over and they go back to being a bottom feeder. In a league where top QBs are the hardest thing to acquire, these morons are going to let one walk out the door. It's unprecedented. 

No, it's not unprecedented. ATL let Brett Favre go. SD let Drew Brees go. Those are the QB's who ended up being great for other teams. SF let Alex Smith go, who's gone on to be serviceable. Bradford is on his 3rd team and he's been an average starter on each. Peyton freaking Manning was let go from the Colts and went on to win a Super Bowl with his new team (even if that had more to do with the surrounding talent). Now consider the QB's who have gone on to new teams and failed. The Flynns and Osweilers. These are just recent examples too. You might say "Oh but ATL didn't know Favre would go on to be one of the all time greats" or "SD thought Brees would never recover from his injury" or "Manning was at the end of his career." Yeah every situation is unique. But what about Cousins? He's shown some greatness, but a lot more average and worse play. He's shown some clutch play on 4th quarter game winning drives, but he's also completely failed to show up in a lot of big games. He's shown that he can't do much without a strong supporting cast (see stats with Jordan Reed vs without Jordan Reed). He's shown he does not want to play here. Breaking the bank for a player like that is a risky move that a smart GM might choose to avoid. He might move on and be great with another team, he might be average, he might be a couple years away from riding a bench for the rest of his career. You don't know, nobody really knows. Our GM has to make a guess, and he might get it wrong, but no matter how it turns out there's nothing unprecedented about it.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting points 5. I get what you are saying about Cousin. He can show up small at times, but he put up a lot of points in this league. Tough situation for the Redskins. I think Allen will get creative with a contract that keeps Cousins around for at least a year or two. 

I recall in the ATL and SD situations that both teams had what they thought was their starting QB. In SD's case they were right with Rivers. In Washington's case, if they let Cousins do you feel comfortable with a replacement QB to keep the offense running effectively? Who do you have in mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 5 Digits said:

No, it's not unprecedented. ATL let Brett Favre go. SD let Drew Brees go. Those are the QB's who ended up being great for other teams. SF let Alex Smith go, who's gone on to be serviceable. Bradford is on his 3rd team and he's been an average starter on each. Peyton freaking Manning was let go from the Colts and went on to win a Super Bowl with his new team (even if that had more to do with the surrounding talent). Now consider the QB's who have gone on to new teams and failed. The Flynns and Osweilers. These are just recent examples too. You might say "Oh but ATL didn't know Favre would go on to be one of the all time greats" or "SD thought Brees would never recover from his injury" or "Manning was at the end of his career." Yeah every situation is unique. But what about Cousins? He's shown some greatness, but a lot more average and worse play. He's shown some clutch play on 4th quarter game winning drives, but he's also completely failed to show up in a lot of big games. He's shown that he can't do much without a strong supporting cast (see stats with Jordan Reed vs without Jordan Reed). He's shown he does not want to play here. Breaking the bank for a player like that is a risky move that a smart GM might choose to avoid. He might move on and be great with another team, he might be average, he might be a couple years away from riding a bench for the rest of his career. You don't know, nobody really knows. Our GM has to make a guess, and he might get it wrong, but no matter how it turns out there's nothing unprecedented about it.

The bolded is the key point to me.

I mean, many of your points are accurate.  He has in fact shown periods of time where he can be a very good QB but he's also shown times where he can come up small in the clutch.  Make no mistake about it, if he comes through vs. Carolina and NYGiants down the stretch this is a very different conversation.  That said, if Cousins is really, truly committed to being here, I would be inclined to sign him to a long term deal, on the strength of him being well above average and also on the reality that we don't have other options currently (I guess I"m in the minority thinking Colt won't step in and easily win 9 games).  Those on this board know, I've been a pretty consistent Cousins supporter.

That said, I think the most important thing in negotiations, is for the Redskins get get a true sense of whether Cousins wants to be here. The worse scenario is not our letting him go this year.  It's retaining him for a one year rental and starting over NEXT year.  Bottom line, if you are going to start over, better to do it sooner rather than later, and ideally with additional draft picks.  So, if I am Scot or Bruce or whoever, I take Cousins out somewhere and I just look him in the eye, and ask:  "Tell us Kirk, do you want to play here or would you rather leave?"  If he wants to play here, open up the pocketbook and pay him what market demands and don't look back.  But...if you feel like he doesn't want to be here, then you have to tag and trade him this year.  This may mean getting a # 1 and a # 3 instead of two # 1's but if the alternative is you pay him 24 M this year just to see him leave next year, then a 1 and a 3 is better than a nothing plus a year wasted.  

I don't know if they can get him to be honest about it but that's what I would do:  ask him straight up if he wants to be here.  Because to me the money business can all be worked out...what's more important than that is to know if you even have a SHOT at negotiating or if he and his agent are just playing a game to go to market next year...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much cap space does Washington have?I should look it up myself but I'm being lazy. I'm beginning to think some team will make an offer. I think he is easily the best available qb, is young, maybe has some lapses but has been a pretty solid starter. Maybe not cle, sf, or chi, but a team that picks a little later may be willing to pay 2 1sts for his services. Put him on Miami (tannehill behind in recovery after choosing not to get surgery), Jacksonville, the jets maybe, buffalo. People seems to be focusing on the top 3 picks, which gets dismissed because that's a little rich. But if you give up say somewhere around 10-15 it seems a decent NFL starter is easily worth that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 32 Counter Pass said:

Some interesting points 5. I get what you are saying about Cousin. He can show up small at times, but he put up a lot of points in this league. Tough situation for the Redskins. I think Allen will get creative with a contract that keeps Cousins around for at least a year or two. 

I recall in the ATL and SD situations that both teams had what they thought was their starting QB. In SD's case they were right with Rivers. In Washington's case, if they let Cousins do you feel comfortable with a replacement QB to keep the offense running effectively? Who do you have in mind?

If you let cousins walk you likely let Mccoy run it next year.  And he should be serviceable. 

 

BTW i don't believe any of this media hype about cousins not wanting to be here.  DC media is the worst sometimes.  I cant see them letting him walk.  Scott, Jay, their jobs are riding on this season(if we believe that portion of the media hype).  Not a ton of leverage.  I just wish we had handled this earlier and gotten it out of the way before the media animals started spinning it. 

And if they truly arent sold, he is good enough to give a deal, and then just draft a late round qb as well. 

 

Either way though, im ok with rebuilding or signing kirk.  Im really indifferent at this point.  :sigh:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before you go believing every media report, check this out.  Remember how Adam Shefter and Mike Florio sent out shock waves that Cousins would be courted by San Francisco?  Well, here are some follow up items:

http://www.csnmidatlantic.com/washington-redskins/49ers-interest-kirk-cousins-waning-report-links-san-fran-new-qb

(Now Shefter says Matt Shaub may follow Shanahan to SF)

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/02/01/jay-cutler-could-be-in-play-for-the-49ers/

(Now Florio says, no wait..Cutler could go to SF)

Here is the common thread:  Shanahan has "ties" to Cousins via Washington; he has "ties" to Cutler through his dad/Denver.  Translation:  media members will look for whatever "connections" they can find between players and then speculate wildly about player movements.  Here we have three different QBs going to SF, when the reality is, SF may even end up drafting a QB or going with what they have.

Take everything with a grain of salt in the offseason.  Reporting is dead.  Speculation rules.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if Kurt really doesn't want to be here for goodness sake let's move him now and get SOMETHING for him. We can always rent Jay Cutler for a year. ;)  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah.  Blah.

If the media speculates on everything Redskins they will eventually be right on 10% of it and tell us how brilliant they are.  It fills their air time.  By all means, don't talk about the Wiz, Caps, or Nats spring training.  I hate baseball and I'd rather hear that.  Fact is, most of these guys on the radio can't even talk hockey.  Some not even basketball.  Too bad because it would be nice to have sports show hosts the quality of those in more major cities.

The media wants stories. They seem to think the team owes them the honor of giving them something to talk about.  It's lazy journalism spending 80% of time on Redskins.

Why would the team show it's hand at anything?  I respect the team for keeping it close to the vest.

 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, 5 Digits said:

No, it's not unprecedented. ATL let Brett Favre go. SD let Drew Brees go. Those are the QB's who ended up being great for other teams. SF let Alex Smith go, who's gone on to be serviceable. Bradford is on his 3rd team and he's been an average starter on each. Peyton freaking Manning was let go from the Colts and went on to win a Super Bowl with his new team (even if that had more to do with the surrounding talent). Now consider the QB's who have gone on to new teams and failed. The Flynns and Osweilers. These are just recent examples too. You might say "Oh but ATL didn't know Favre would go on to be one of the all time greats" or "SD thought Brees would never recover from his injury" or "Manning was at the end of his career." Yeah every situation is unique. But what about Cousins? He's shown some greatness, but a lot more average and worse play. He's shown some clutch play on 4th quarter game winning drives, but he's also completely failed to show up in a lot of big games. He's shown that he can't do much without a strong supporting cast (see stats with Jordan Reed vs without Jordan Reed). He's shown he does not want to play here. Breaking the bank for a player like that is a risky move that a smart GM might choose to avoid. He might move on and be great with another team, he might be average, he might be a couple years away from riding a bench for the rest of his career. You don't know, nobody really knows. Our GM has to make a guess, and he might get it wrong, but no matter how it turns out there's nothing unprecedented about it.

Favre was a zero with potential and only 1 guy saw the potential - Ron Wolf. Zero production before the trade.

Brees had a scary arm injury. Miami even passed on him. NO one will pass on Cousins if they are in need of a franchise QB.

Indy made a great move. Manning's neck injury forced the move and it was a great move It had to do with grabbing a potential superstar QB for the future.

Bradford is a ham & egger. Cousins 2 years are better than anything that guy has put up.

Cousins has no major issues, period. his play the last 2 years has been better Matt Ryan's of 2015. Look at Matt Ryan now.

None of the guys you mentioned put up huge #s the 2 years before where they stand now. 2 years worth . You can talk about the TOs and I say look at Matt Ryan and his 2015 OTs. Just as bad If not worse.  End of story.

14 hours ago, DallasDMac said:

You've made this same point, almost the exact same post, about half a dozen times. We get it. You made your opinion clear. Is there some compulsion to post the same thing over and over ad naseum? It's like sitting through those Chevy commercials over and over and over and over....

Because the WASH FO incompetence is staggering. These clowns are supposed to be professionals at what they do and they are acting like they ride the short bus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Brunell4MVP said:

Blah.  Blah.

If the media speculates on everything Redskins they will eventually be right on 10% of it and tell us how brilliant they are.  It fills their air time.  By all means, don't talk about the Wiz, Caps, or Nats spring training.  I hate baseball and I'd rather hear that.  Fact is, most of these guys on the radio can't even talk hockey.  Some not even basketball.  Too bad because it would be nice to have sports show hosts the quality of those in more major cities.

The media wants stories. They seem to think the team owes them the honor of giving them something to talk about.  It's lazy journalism spending 80% of time on Redskins.

Why would the team show it's hand at anything?  I respect the team for keeping it close to the vest.

 

 

Amen.  Take the Wizards.  We're roughly 24 hours from the trade deadline and they need to make a move to shore up their bench scoring and make a run in the East.  WIth an improved bench, they can absolutely make a run at Cleveland.  That is a HUGE deal but instead we're speculating with ZERO PROOF that Bruce Allen somehow put Chris Cooley up to calling someone a drunk on the airwaves.  It's absolutely ridiculous.

Ditto with the Caps.  I know they are choking dogs but this may be the year they throw the preverbial monkey off their backs...talk about it guys!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh good.

Quote

In reality, team president Bruce Allen has always been in charge. McCloughan was brought in to be a super scout to restock the roster, but in terms of lasting influence, his job was structured for disposability.

Quote

Allen, whose responsibilities within the organization have increased despite his uneven performance, hired McCloughan for support. He didn’t want a replacement, and despite being criticized for the team’s poor play, he didn’t exactly want a new direction. He wanted an ace in the room to make everyone look better. But Allen didn’t want to cede control.

McCloughan is essentially as powerful as Allen wishes him to be. Even though McCloughan technically has final say on personnel matters, he still has to go through Allen to get deals completed, which is one way to limit the GM’s power. Even though McCloughan would be Coach Jay Gruden’s boss in a normal organizational structure, he doesn’t have the authority to fire Gruden or anyone on the coaching staff. Gruden and McCloughan report directly to Allen. They are, in essence, on the same shelf.

McCloughan runs the show — with Allen’s old scouting department. McCloughan flirted with adding a few of his own folks, but nothing came of it. So his challenge was to teach a team he didn’t put together his talent-evaluating tricks, to make them see what he sees, rather than create a staff that he knew he could manage.

As Washington constructed the roster the past two seasons, Allen overruled a few key decisions that McCloughan and Gruden wanted to make, according to people with knowledge of the team. Allen proved to be right on a couple of those moves. Other times, he hindered progress. But the ultimate point is this: If you thought McCloughan’s presence served as a shield from upper-management meddling, well, this franchise will never work that way.

If a herd of feral hogs ran over Allen I'd have trouble not rooting for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ted Mullins said:

Did Brewer have any sources for this article?  Or is this just kind of what "makes sense" to him based on history, personal opinion, etc?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

### rapage possible at the combine. http://theredzone.org/BlogDescription/tabid/61/EntryId/61881/Report--Redskins-49ers-could-do-Cousins-deal-at-Combine/Default.aspx

Daniel Jeremiah of NFL Network "would not be shocked at all" if the Washington Redskins and the San Francisco 49ers agree to a trade involving quarterback Kirk Cousins at the NFL Scouting Combine next week.

Jeremiah is usually more of a draft guru than a source of information on the organizational side but he does have deep contacts. He believes there's a "better than 50 percent" chance that Cousins is not with the Redskins in 2017, and a deal involving Cousins going to San Francisco, possibly along with the Redskins' No. 17 overall pick, in exchange for the 49ers' No. 2 overall pick, is in the cards.

 

:lmao: Cousins AND pick # 17 for pick #2. That's a little :sarcasm: ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds fine to me!  (assuming its a start1qb 12-teamer like most trades on these boards...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MikeApf said:

Did Brewer have any sources for this article?  Or is this just kind of what "makes sense" to him based on history, personal opinion, etc?

He's covered them for for the Washington Post for awhile now and has seemed to have good information. He doesn't list his sources in the article. So either he has none, or he's not saying who they are (which would be wise for any reporter if they value their sources).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Redskins won't trade Cousins AND pick # 17 for pick #2. You heard this no-brainer here first.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would they even consider this? There's no sure-fire QB in this draft with a worth anywhere near the number two pick. So what would this trade accomplish? Almost getting Myles Garrett?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Skins give up their 1st AND Cousins for just the Niners 1st rounder I'm finding a new favorite team after cheering for them my entire life!!!! :wall:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, CabinFever said:

If the Skins give up their 1st AND Cousins for just the Niners 1st rounder I'm finding a new favorite team after cheering for them my entire life!!!! :wall:

Not happening.  It seems to me the rumor is missing a piece of the trade.  Like it should be Cousins and #17 for #2 this year and next years SF first rounder.  Or maybe a player.

Just speculation anyway.  It's fun to mess around with ideas.  But frankly any team really wanting to trade for him is probably keeping a shut mouth.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, MikeApf said:

Did Brewer have any sources for this article?  Or is this just kind of what "makes sense" to him based on history, personal opinion, etc?

It's certainly written as if it's fact as opposed to his assumptions. It would not surprise me at all considering past history and McCloughan supposedly being muffled at the Senior Bowl. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just when it seemed this team was done with all the drama, we're right back to where we were. Please don't find a way to screw this up.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't be too shocked if Washington blew up the roster a little bit with aims of getting lots of draft stock next year.  Gruden could be dumped after this coming season if the Skins don't do well, and a new coach would want to bring in a new QB.  If they trade for #2 and somehow get Garrett or some other very talented player, I could see them going QB next year with a new coach.  IMO if they trade Cousins, Gruden doesn't have long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we don't know if Brewer's article (about Allen really running things, and putting McCloughan in his place) is based on real source information or not. But what we do know is 3 things:

1. Cooley is a Redskin employee.
2. Cooley wondered out loud on the air if McCloughan was drinking again.
3. The Redskins front office did not do one thing to publicly support their GM, McCloughan.

edit: for what it's worth, here's what some guys following the Redskins said about the article.

Quote

Dan SteinbergVerified account‏@dcsportsbog

"In reality, Bruce Allen has always been in charge." @JerryBrewer with the good stuff here

Quote

John KeimVerified account‏@john_keim Feb 22

John Keim Retweeted Dan Steinberg

Let me make it clear: This column is good & insightful. Shed major light on situation for first time. That is all.

 

Edited by fatness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MattFancy said:

Just when it seemed this team was done with all the drama, we're right back to where we were. Please don't find a way to screw this up.

:thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article on re-signing (or no re-signing) Jackson and Garcon.

Quote

The Redskins’ risk with this strategy is clear: They’re giving other teams a chance to let the players know of their interest and, therefore, driving up the price. Both receivers will have multiple suitors (my sense: Garcon will have more, though Jackson might get a bigger deal). The Redskins know this, so if there’s a strong desire to keep them around, then there would have been at least one serious talk beforehand. Now? Their return (hard to see both back) remains one scenario of many.

This isn’t about Kirk Cousins’ potential contract. Rather, it’s more about what direction they want to go. Invest in receivers who are 30-years-old (real tough to see them keeping both, however)? Or invest heavily in the defense and fortify other parts on offense (like the run game)? They could keep one and still improve the defense, if they want. But it’s also about roster flexibility now and in the future. One way perhaps helps them more right now; the other way could help them more for a few years, but that requires trust that they’ll spend wisely and build properly.

Then it comes down to their level of confidence in Josh Doctson’s health; Ryan Grant and Maurice Harris’ development and Jamison Crowder’s ability to handle an even bigger load. There would be interest in other free agent receivers, too. Kenny Britt would be one possibility. Who is throwing them the ball? And what if they moved on from Cousins and both receivers? They’d have the money to transform their style of play. Whether that works or not could only be answered starting in September. Certainly, fingers and toes would be crossed.

This isn’t yet about what demands the players have, whether how much per year or how many years. It’s hard to know that without any talks. Real hard. Both receivers likely know they’ll be playing on a three-year deal anyway -- it allows them to perhaps get something more front-loaded with the ability to cash in one more time before they retire.

Regardless, the Redskins would certainly be starting as a much different team than the one that relied on their passing game to keep them in games. That’s a lot of change and adjustment. If it doesn’t lead to success, there will be more.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris Baker

Quote

While most of the contract talk centers on the quarterback and the wide receivers, there is one very big decision to be made on defense. Chris Baker is slated to be a free agent in two weeks and there is no indication yet whether the Redskins will bring him back.

Baker has been the Redskins’ best defensive lineman for the last three years. He has seen high-priced free agents Jason Hatcher and Stephen Paea come and go along with others such as Pot Roast Knighton and Kendall Reyes. Now that it’s his turn to sign a moderately rich contract there are serious doubts about his future.

The Redskins are looking at the numbers. He has been highly productive, with 10.5 sacks and five forced fumbles in the last two seasons combined. Baker will be 29 in October so age is not a huge factor now but it will become one over the course of a multi-year deal.

The big number, of course, is money. Spotrac has calculated that his market value will lead to Baker getting a four-year contract averaging $7.3 million per year. That would be roughly comparable to what the Redskins gave a 32-year-old Jason Hatcher to come from the Cowboys in 2014 (Hatcher got four years, $27.5 million with $10.5 million fully guaranteed).

Should the Redskins bring back Baker? Yes. They need to rebuild the defensive line and Baker should be around for continuity. He wants to stay here and there is no reason to let him go elsewhere. But the question here is, will they bring him back?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember when the draft choice facing the Redskins was Trent Williams or Russell Okung? The Broncos won't pick up Okung's option. He'll be looking for his 3rd team.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.