Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Hijinx

Quarterbacks almost never get non-exclusive.* I know it is rare for teams to be willing to pay two 1st rounders , but quarterbacks is a different thing. Is it so unlikely that the Texans(22nd pick) or the Broncos(32nd pick) would give a late 1st this year and next to solve their QB problems?

The Skins paid more than that to move up and get RG3. Is there that much Cap savings in the non exclusive tag?

*Edit- Once in the last decade and that was Matt Cassel whom the Pats didn't even want to keep just used him as trade bait.

I'm just curious to know when was the last time a team traded two first-round picks (or even one first rounder) for a player with the non-exclusive tag. Anyone know? I think Cassel was trader for a second rounder.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by That Guy

dunno what they were talking about, but exclusive or non exclusive franchise tags are both 19.9m for QBs this year from everything i've seen. next year the price goes up a minimum of 20%, which would be 24m, which is also less than whatever they were discussing.

I don't think that the bolded line is right. This quote is from 2013 when the Ravens were signing Flacco (link

NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TAG: The non-exclusive Franchise Tag is the Tag that is used most often. It does not preclude the player from negotiating with other teams, but does allow the player’s present team to match any offer sheet or receive two first round draft picks if they decline to match.

The non-exclusive Tag is a one-year contract that is the average of the top five players at the position over the prior five years. For 2013, the non-exclusive Tag for Quarterbacks has tentatively been set at $14.6M.

While the non-exclusive Tag is certainly more risky in most circumstances, other teams have rarely bothered signing franchised players to offer sheets. Often, this is simply because either the player doesn’t want to pursue an offer sheet or because other teams simply aren’t interested in spending a lot of time hammering out a contract that likely will be matched by the player’s present team anyway.
...

The other main reason for the lack of offer sheets is the amount of compensation and money involved – (1) most teams don’t want to part with two 1st round picks and (2) if giving up two 1st round picks isn’t bad enough, it’s going to take a huge contract to dissuade the other team from matching the offer sheet. Simply put, teams are willing to sign free agents to huge contracts and teams are willing to use draft picks to acquire players, but teams are rarely interested in doing both to acquire a player.

EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TAG: The Ravens’ other option is to use the exclusive Tag on Flacco. The exclusive Franchise Tag precludes any negotiations between Flacco and other teams, so this version of the Tag would ensure that the Ravens couldn’t lose Flacco. While this is obviously a safer course, the trade-off from that protection is a much higher Franchise tender amount.

The exclusive tag is a one-year contract that is the average of the top five QB salaries for this year, at the end of the RFA signing period (which is usually five days before the NFL draft, so this year, April 19th). At this point, the exclusive Franchise Tag is expected to be over $20M. With a very tight Cap already, that is going to be a tall assignment for the Ravens and may force the team to release several players they would otherwise prefer to keep.

So in 2013 the difference was roughly $6M dollars, or the same as I understood the radio to be saying. I tried to find published salaries for both but only found the non-exclusive. But Wikipedia and other internet sources all agreed with the basic definition of the exclusive and non-exclusive salary determinations.

And logically, if it was the same cost to the team they would never do the less restrictive one, so it makes sense to me that the exclusive would bring a higher payoff to the player, because they are giving up more rights.

also on Von Miller's Exclusive Tag this statement was made:

Under the terms of the exclusive tag, Miller would make the average of the five best-paid linebackers for the 2016 season so the value won’t be known for a couple of months. That would become a moot point if Miller and the Broncos sign a long-term deal before the July 15 deadline to get one done

So likely had they used the Exclusive tag we wouldn't know the exact value for a few months.

[metalskins]

I dunno. I haven't seen any information on the exclusive being worth more than the nonexclusive. Maybe the difference only applied to 2013?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by metalskins

I dunno. I haven't seen any information on the exclusive being worth more than the nonexclusive. Maybe the difference only applied to 2013?

From Wikipedia:

The National Football League introduced the franchise tag in 1993.[1] There are two types of franchise tag designations: the exclusive rights franchise tag, and non-exclusive rights franchise tag:
An "exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position as of a date in April of the current year in which the tag will apply, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. Exclusive franchise players cannot negotiate with other teams. The player's team has all the negotiating rights to the exclusive player.

A "non-exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five cap hits at the player's position for the previous five years applied to the current salary cap, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. A non-exclusive franchise player may negotiate with other NFL teams, but if the player signs an offer sheet from another team, the original team has a right to match the terms of that offer, or if it does not match the offer and thus loses the player, is entitled to receive two first-round draft picks as compensation.

Under the Capped years a team can designate one additional player only as a transitional tag. A transition player must be offered a minimum of the average of the top 10 salaries of the prior season at the player's position or 120 percent of the player's prior year's salary, whichever is greater. A transition player designation gives the club a first-refusal right to match within seven days an offer sheet given to the player by another club after his contract expires. If the club matches, it retains the player. If it does not match, it receives no compensation.

[That Guy]

you may very well be right. i just hadn't seen anyone mention the differences on nfl.com or espn.com as of yet. either way, if someone's giving us right of refusal or 2 1st round picks, i think i'm okay with that.

[Schneed10]

Nobody would give 2 first rounders plus a big contract for Kirk Cousins so you guys can just stop. He'll be a Redskin, whether under a long term deal or under the franchise tag.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Nobody would give 2 first rounders plus a big contract for Kirk Cousins so you guys can just stop. He'll be a Redskin, whether under a long term deal or under the franchise tag.

Probably not even a first rounder. That's why I don't think it makes that much of a difference (in terms of there being a chance Cousins signs with another team) between the exclusive and non-exclusive tag.

[sandtrapjack]

Originally Posted by Hijinx

Quarterbacks almost never get non-exclusive.* I know it is rare for teams to be willing to pay two 1st rounders , but quarterbacks is a different thing. Is it so unlikely that the Texans(22nd pick) or the Broncos(32nd pick) would give a late 1st this year and next to solve their QB problems?

The Skins paid more than that to move up and get RG3. Is there that much Cap savings in the non exclusive tag?

*Edit- Once in the last decade and that was Matt Cassel whom the Pats didn't even want to keep just used him as trade bait.

Giving the FO the benefit here. By tagging Cousins with the non-exclusive tag, he can negotiate with other clubs.

Essentially, the FO is saying "Go ahead and talk to other clubs, if there is a better deal than what we have discussed, let us know."

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by MTK

At this point I'm content with letting KC play on the tag this year. If he earns the monster deal next year so be it. It would be a win/win all around.

I'm with you 100% on this. Right now, the bare minimum he'll be signing would be 19mil/yr since Bradford's contract raised the stakes. Not comfortable with that seeing as the sample size is 8 games.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Nobody would give 2 first rounders plus a big contract for Kirk Cousins so you guys can just stop. He'll be a Redskin, whether under a long term deal or under the franchise tag.

Agree. Him and his agent aren't even going to bother seeking out any deals because I imagine teams aren't remotely interested in paying him a huge contract plus two 1st rounders. This isn't Aaron Rodgers we're talking about.

[Hijinx]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Nobody would give 2 first rounders plus a big contract for Kirk Cousins so you guys can just stop. He'll be a Redskin, whether under a long term deal or under the franchise tag.

If you were the Texans and your 1st round pick is 22nd, would you rather

1. Use you 22nd pick on subpar/unproven QB
2. Give up your 22nd plus more picks (maybe next year's 1st) to draft unproven QB
3. OR give up your 22nd pick and next year's 1st for a QB that was pretty good in his only full year starting.

Remember that option 2 may end up costing as much as option 3 or more in terms of draft picks. Also that this draft is widely considered poor in terms of QB skill. A team like the Texans(or Broncos) who have a late first round pick and a need at QB might take option 3.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Hijinx

[*]OR give up your 22nd pick and next year's 1st for a QB that was pretty good in his only full year starting.

He's still in year 4 AND the good was a sample size of 8-9 games. No I wouldn't shell out 2 first rounders and a huge contract for something like that.

[SCRedskinsFan]

Originally Posted by Hijinx

If you were the Texans and your 1st round pick is 22nd, would you rather

1. Use you 22nd pick on subpar/unproven QB
2. Give up your 22nd plus more picks (maybe next year's 1st) to draft unproven QB
3. OR give up your 22nd pick and next year's 1st for a QB that was pretty good in his only full year starting.

Remember that option 2 may end up costing as much as option 3 or more in terms of draft picks. Also that this draft is widely considered poor in terms of QB skill. A team like the Texans(or Broncos) who have a late first round pick and a need at QB might take option 3.

The rookie contract under your option 2 would be way less than making a deal with Kirk Cousins. So no, option 2 wouldn't be anywhere near the cost of option 3.

[Hijinx]

Originally Posted by SCRedskinsFan

The rookie contract under your option 2 would be way less than making a deal with Kirk Cousins. So no, option 2 wouldn't be anywhere near the cost of option 3.

Read the sentence, In terms of draft picks. Besides the Cap is getting a fair sized bump this year and no one is going to complain about paying a QB. Of course you only do this if you are sure he sign a multi year deal.

[Hijinx]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

He's still in year 4 AND the good was a sample size of 8-9 games. No I wouldn't shell out 2 first rounders and a huge contract for something like that.

Pretty sure he played 16 games last year and he was good in most of them. The Redskins as a whole weren't great in many of them.