Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread

I don't understand the talk about getting rid of KC and overhauling the defense. So what that means is we go pay a bunch of free agents with the money he's going to make? Then start McCoy? That might be the stupidest thing the Redskins can do, even stupider than the RG3 trade and Haynesworth. That's going back to the old way of doing business, over paying guys from other teams and not rewarding your own. I can see that type of nonsense with Dan and Bruce. Not SM.

I looked back at articles around Flacco's FT -> contract period, and it looks like they didn't start negotiating till after that year's SB, maybe that was because they won it... But since the FT is in play again this year, I imagine we would have a signed deal in place till right around when the Skins have to make a final decision in March about using the FT a second time.



Is there anyone else who would be worth tagging that might force the Skins hand a little, ie DJax Garcon or Baker?


Well, after reading the article that Bishop Hammer posted (thanks BH) I guess there won't be anything new to talk about in regards to Kirk Cousins until the Redskins tag him. It sounds like there would be no reason (other than loyalty - yea right) for Cousins to want to rush through negotiations with the Redskins until he's heard from other teams. So, the question comes down to, which tag will the Redskins use?

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of the non-exclusive tag. It can give the Redskins an idea of how other teams value Kirk Cousins while still giving the Redskins an opportunity to match the offer. And if they don't, they get two first round picks.

I know Scot McCloughan would love the thought of having an extra number one pick this year and next year (or if the team happened to have two number one picks this year they would give up). He could use one to draft BPA and the other to trade for additional picks or also BPA. Or they could negotiate some other type of trade deal. This could be a very tempting route SM would take, but I just don't know, you're talking about a good quarterback, and good quarterbacks are hard to find. Looking at other free agent QBs, the next one on the list after Kirk Cousins is Mike Glennon. I think I would take my chance with Colt McCoy over Glennon.

I don't understand the talk about getting rid of KC and overhauling the defense. So what that means is we go pay a bunch of free agents with the money he's going to make? Then start McCoy? That might be the stupidest thing the Redskins can do, even stupider than the RG3 trade and Haynesworth. That's going back to the old way of doing business, over paying guys from other teams and not rewarding your own. I can see that type of nonsense with Dan and Bruce. Not SM.

Well, like I said, if it was the non-exclusive tag, at least the Redskins would be getting something in return for not matching if they chose to let Cousins walk. One of those first rounders could be used on a quarterback with (hopefully) a higher ceiling. I haven't paid much attention to college quarterbacks this year, so I don't know how deep the draft is with QBs.

It's all a gamble. I mean, I remember the Herschel Walker trade that made the Dallas Cowboys dynasty during the 90's. Certainly a different situation with Kirk Cousins and the Redskins, but it's not out of the realm of possibility. I would most certainly be open to the idea of getting as much as I possibly could if Cousins wants to leave.

Realistically, he'll probably be tagged by the exclusive tag, but I would not doubt the Redskins brass is not coming up with some hypotheticals with the nonexclusive.

I thought it was only at the beginning of free agency due to the nature of the franchise tag. Am I wrong on that?

Pretty sure they can negotiate now - after the last regular season game.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/football-insider/wp/2017/01/11/here-are-seven-ways-the-redskins-kirk-cousins-contract-negotiations-could-play-out/?utm_term=.c5f64dafa5a0

Interesting tidbit from this writer is that he feels one of the scenarios is that the Redskins decline to match another team's offer on Cousins, but are compensated with two first round draft picks. I did not think the Redskins valued Cousins high enough to warrant two first round picks.

This article seems to believe that we franchise him again at 24 million, which means he walks in 2018 because i believe you can not use the tag three consecutive times in a row.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/football-insider/wp/2017/01/11/here-are-seven-ways-the-redskins-kirk-cousins-contract-negotiations-could-play-out/?utm_term=.c5f64dafa5a0

Interesting tidbit from this writer is that he feels one of the scenarios is that the Redskins decline to match another team's offer on Cousins, but are compensated with two first round draft picks. I did not think the Redskins valued Cousins high enough to warrant two first round picks.

This article seems to believe that we franchise him again at 24 million, which means he walks in 2018 because i believe you can not use the tag three consecutive times in a row.

Don't want to rain on your parade but you can use it 3 times in a row, not 4 times in a row though. Next year his tag would be 34 million.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/football-insider/wp/2017/01/11/here-are-seven-ways-the-redskins-kirk-cousins-contract-negotiations-could-play-out/?utm_term=.c5f64dafa5a0

Interesting tidbit from this writer is that he feels one of the scenarios is that the Redskins decline to match another team's offer on Cousins, but are compensated with two first round draft picks. I did not think the Redskins valued Cousins high enough to warrant two first round picks.

This article seems to believe that we franchise him again at 24 million, which means he walks in 2018 because i believe you can not use the tag three consecutive times in a row.

It's the nature of how the nonexclusive tag works. It doesn't have to be two number one picks though. The team that has the tagged player can negotiate a deal where it might be some lower draft picks and a trade or something like that. For instance, let's say that now that the Chargers are moving to LA, Phillip Rivers may not want to play in LA (he's stated such before from what I've read.) Let's say he demands to be traded to another team. Could be a scenario where the Redskins are willing to not match an offer that the Chargers would put in for Kirk Cousins and in exchange, the Redskins get Phillip Rivers and a couple 3rd round picks. It would be a win-win situation. The Redskins would get a quarterback who is a proven franchise quarterback, and some draft picks, Chargers would get a potential franchise quarterback who wants to play for any team willing to pay for him. It doesn't have to automatically be two number one picks with the nonexclusive tag.

Not saying this is likely to happen, but honestly, I've felt that if the Redskins cut Cousins loose, it would only be in a situation where they land an established franchise quarterback who could essentially pick up from where Cousins left it, keep the trajectory heading upward for the Redskins rebuild, and allow Scot McCloughan to continue focusing on building the defense. Phillip Rivers still has several good years left in him, and I think he's wasting his career with the Chargers. Having said that, I don't see this scenario being likely at all, but just to give you an example of how the nonexclusive tag could work. I'm all in favor of keeping Cousins as I think he has potential of being a franchise quarterback for several years to come. And yes, you can tag a quarterback three years in a row, with that third year, he receivers a 44% raise over the cap number of the previous year. You can't tag a non-quarterback three years in a row though.

It's the nature of how the nonexclusive tag works. It doesn't have to be two number one picks though. The team that has the tagged player can negotiate a deal where it might be some lower draft picks and a trade or something like that. For instance, let's say that now that the Chargers are moving to LA, Phillip Rivers may not want to play in LA (he's stated such before from what I've read.) Let's say he demands to be traded to another team. Could be a scenario where the Redskins are willing to not match an offer that the Chargers would put in for Kirk Cousins and in exchange, the Redskins get Phillip Rivers and a couple 3rd round picks. It would be a win-win situation. The Redskins would get a quarterback who is a proven franchise quarterback, and some draft picks, Chargers would get a potential franchise quarterback who wants to play for any team willing to pay for him. It doesn't have to automatically be two number one picks with the nonexclusive tag.

Not saying this is likely to happen, but honestly, I've felt that if the Redskins cut Cousins loose, it would only be in a situation where they land an established franchise quarterback who could essentially pick up from where Cousins left it, keep the trajectory heading upward for the Redskins rebuild, and allow Scot McCloughan to continue focusing on building the defense. Phillip Rivers still has several good years left in him, and I think he's wasting his career with the Chargers. Having said that, I don't see this scenario being likely at all, but just to give you an example of how the nonexclusive tag could work. I'm all in favor of keeping Cousins as I think he has potential of being a franchise quarterback for several years to come. And yes, you can tag a quarterback three years in a row, with that third year, he receivers a 44% raise over the cap number of the previous year. You can't tag a non-quarterback three years in a row though.

Thanks for explaining that. I still think it's silly that our main issue with Cousins is that we don't want to pay him, but yet they are okay with (continuing) to tag him, potentially two more times, which means he only gets paid by us more and more on one year deals. Crazy, to me. You tag him again this year because you have no replacement option, and then next year he starts his negotiations at 34 million....

Thanks for explaining that. I still think it's silly that our main issue with Cousins is that we don't want to pay him, but yet they are okay with (continuing) to tag him, potentially two more times, which means he only gets paid by us more and more on one year deals. Crazy, to me. You tag him again this year because you have no replacement option, and then next year he starts his negotiations at 34 million....

It's one of those situations where you couldn't really predict the future. Last year, had the Redskins decided to be aggressive in getting a long term deal done, it would have cost less, but they would have essentially been the ones gambling on one half of a good season. Had this year proven that the latter half of 2015 was all smoke and mirrors, you're now stuck with a QB (ala' Brock Osweiler) who will have set you back because he isn't as advertised.

Now, the Redskins are free to start negotiating with Cousins now, but unless they offer him exactly what he wants, it's going to be a fruitless negotiation. Even if the Redskins do offer Cousins exactly what he's asking for, then his agent is just going to say, that he wants to see if other teams are willing to beat that offer. The Redskins want to tag Cousins to avoid a bidding war. The only question is, nonexclusive tag verses exclusive.

Thanks for explaining that. I still think it's silly that our main issue with Cousins is that we don't want to pay him, but yet they are okay with (continuing) to tag him, potentially two more times, which means he only gets paid by us more and more on one year deals. Crazy, to me. You tag him again this year because you have no replacement option, and then next year he starts his negotiations at 34 million....

Can you show any public statement by the Redskins that says they don't want to pay him? Not anonymous sources, or even beat writers, an official statement.