Kirk Cousins 365 thread

My thinking right now is that we will non-exclusive franchise tag Cousins this year because we can likely match the majority of offers that are signed for him and take the value if we decide not to match.

If we lose Kirk, it will be to the... Browns.

Everyone is thinking that SF because of Kyle tie in, but I believe it will be the Browns who will sign that offer sheet because they have the ammo and the reasoning.

They can trade the 1st overall pick and still pick in the first round at 12. The also have multiple 2nd round picks and the most cap space. If they want to do an outright trade they have the ammunition to make that happen.

Last year the Browns racked up multiple picks in this draft and if they don't make the right decisions this year that management will be fired.

I don't think we lose Kirk Cousins to anybody, but if it were to happen, it would be interesting that the Browns wind up getting both of our 2012 quarterback draft picks. I'm sure there's still a small sec of Redskins fans who would say to straight up trade Cousins for RGIII back, lol!

What if there was some weird three way trade where the 'skins jettisoned Cousins to the 49ers, the 49ers make some weird trade with New England in which Jimmy Garoppolo wound up heading to Washington? Could you imagine the nightmare of trying to spell his name right in these forums?

Could you imagine the nightmare of trying to spell his name right in these forums?

Garo? Polo!

That isnt too hard to spell really.....

bad, bad, bad, pun. Sorry, bored at work.

Garo? Polo!

That isnt too hard to spell really.....

bad, bad, bad, pun. Sorry, bored at work.


LOL! Hmmmm.....Jimmy Marco! Now that might have a ring to it.

Lions? They seem to have a pretty solid quarterback in Mathew Stafford.

Right now they do, absolutely. I'm talking in terms of how many titles they've won off the strength of their elite quarterbacks.

I think he meant Bills, Jets, Rams.....IDK

I was talking about any team that has spent more than a person's lifetime and never won a championship. Championship caliber qb's are hard to find. Kirk represents our best chance to win one in the next 5-10 years. If you give him up it might be decades before we find another one. Sure that seems unreasonable but I'm gonna bet after '91 nobody thought it would take 25+ seasons to find another franchise qb.

I was talking about any team that has spent more than a person's lifetime and never won a championship. Championship caliber qb's are hard to find. Kirk represents our best chance to win one in the next 5-10 years. If you give him up it might be decades before we find another one. Sure that seems unreasonable but I'm gonna bet after '91 nobody thought it would take 25+ seasons to find another franchise qb.

What about Brad Johnson? But Snyder screwed that up too

What about Brad Johnson? But Snyder screwed that up too

I was about 11 years old in '99, and I remember 2000 as being the year my dad had season tickets and I got into football, but the Redskins went 8-8 that year and then Johnson left and went on to win a SB with the Bucs. But my point is, according to the stats BJ had a great season in '99 and then a subpar year in 2000 which is why we released him. So in hindsight, yeah he could have been a great qb? Someone more knowledgeable about this can answer this better than me, but I guess my main point is, we let him go because he was coming off a bad year. Kirk's year, last game included, is far from a bad year. A bad year is RG3 2013/14, Beck/Grossman/McNabb 2010-2011, Jason Campbell multiple years, Patrick Ramsey/Mark Brunell every year not including 2005, any of the 2000-2005 years with what seems like 12 different qb's, any of the 92-98 years (admittedly before my time so feel free to correct me if I am wrong), etc.

That's a super fucking real alternative based off factual history. Much like a certain presidential candidate this "why not let him go" thing seems to be gaining traction despite an overwhelming mound of evidence as to why it shouldn't happen, least of all being the NFL typically has at least half the teams with uncertain qb solutions every single year. We give up Kirk, we go from the haves to have nots. We go from square 3, on a scale of 5, back to square 1.

https://twitter.com/nfl/status/832048137875238914


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://twitter.com/nfl/status/832048137875238914


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for posting this video. I think Willie McGinest is 100% correct. He stated the case for Kirk eloquently and succinctly.

FWIW, here's where I stand on the issue:

- Both Kirk Cousins and Jay Gruden must be retained and extended.

- Anything other than a long-term deal for Kirk would be plain stupid on the part of the Redskins. They need to get this done.

- Kirk continues to get better in this offensive system, yet there still seems to be some doubt about Jay Gruden being retained past this season. That is utterly preposterous. Jay Gruden has done a very good job. He must be extended so that his system can be retained and perfected by the on-field leader of this team, Kirk Cousins.

It is so easy to envision what this team can become if Dan Snyder keeps the same QB and HC in place that I'd like to think even Dan Snyder couldn't f*** this up.

I was about 11 years old in '99, and I remember 2000 as being the year my dad had season tickets and I got into football, but the Redskins went 8-8 that year and then Johnson left and went on to win a SB with the Bucs. But my point is, according to the stats BJ had a great season in '99 and then a subpar year in 2000 which is why we released him. So in hindsight, yeah he could have been a great qb? Someone more knowledgeable about this can answer this better than me, but I guess my main point is, we let him go because he was coming off a bad year. Kirk's year, last game included, is far from a bad year. A bad year is RG3 2013/14, Beck/Grossman/McNabb 2010-2011, Jason Campbell multiple years, Patrick Ramsey/Mark Brunell every year not including 2005, any of the 2000-2005 years with what seems like 12 different qb's, any of the 92-98 years (admittedly before my time so feel free to correct me if I am wrong), etc.

That's a super fucking real alternative based off factual history. Much like a certain presidential candidate this "why not let him go" thing seems to be gaining traction despite an overwhelming mound of evidence as to why it shouldn't happen, least of all being the NFL typically has at least half the teams with uncertain qb solutions every single year. We give up Kirk, we go from the haves to have nots. We go from square 3, on a scale of 5, back to square 1.

Brad Johnson was a solid, decent quarterback. Never was going to be great IMO. He always seemed to put up good numbers though, but when you start thinking about Super Bowl winning quarterbacks, he's kind of like Trent Dilfer, he's not going to be a quarterback you think of initially.

Snyder was very, very dumb in getting rid of Brad Johnson. But then again, the way that front office was in those early years under this ownership, nothing surprised me. I thought he was also very dumb in getting rid of Charley Casserly. I thought Casserly had put together a decent team for Turner and it darn near got to the NFC Championship game in the '99 playoffs. But anyway, back to Brad Johnson. I always felt Johnson was a solid quarterback who was never going to be elite. He's an example of being good enough that if he's placed on a team with a solid group built around him, he's going to produce for you. Just like Kirk Cousins. I think Kirk Cousins has the potential of being much better than Brad Johnson ever was, but I think to produce Super Bowls, he can't put a team on his back like a Brett Favre, Aaron Rodgers, or a Tom Brady. He needs that good supporting cast around him.