Kirk Cousins 365 thread

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by MTK

It would say far more if he wasn't in the picture.

Good point.

Just felt like putting him in the middle, in front of the others, on a picture with only five players (I mean this is not a photomontage with 10+ players), makes it look like an endorsement. Like "this is the face of the franchise".

But, like many things management said the past few days, it could also turn out to be a good argument to say "we wanted to sign him, we were 100% sure we would, he didn't want to negotiate at all"...

[SolidSnake84]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

Good point.

Just felt like putting him in the middle, in front of the others, on a picture with only five players (I mean this is not a photomontage with 10+ players), makes it look like an endorsement. Like "this is the face of the franchise".

But, like many things management said the past few days, it could also turn out to be a good argument to say "we wanted to sign him, we were 100% sure we would, he didn't want to negotiate at all"...

The picture is exciting, gives me hope, but I wonder how far in advance do they make things like that? I'm just saying. I do think it's telling that Jackson isn't on there, though

[Schneed10]

I don't think it means much, it's a recycled photo from earlier in the year. But I do put stock in Bruce Allen rating it a 10 out of 10 when asked what the likelihood of Cousins being back.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

I have a question, how big of a sign is that social medias post by the team?



I know it's only a post, but how bad does the front board look if they don't sign KC after this?

You know, a picture says a thousand words. To me, this picture says that someone from the Redskins edited together different photos of these players to form this picture.

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I don't think it means much, it's a recycled photo from earlier in the year. But I do put stock in Bruce Allen rating it a 10 out of 10 when asked what the likelihood of Cousins being back.

Well to be honest, he wasn't asked about the likelihood of KC being back, if was asked "on a scale to 1 to 10 what is te likelihood of Cousins being back? 10? Is that a 10? -Yes it's a 10".

So I'm not sure how much it means either. More than a FB post for sure.

I'm just trying to get a sense of how would they look, with all the signals sent to the world, if they don't bring him back.

[DYoungJelly]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

Well to be honest, he wasn't asked about the likelihood of KC being back, if was asked "on a scale to 1 to 10 what is te likelihood of Cousins being back? 10? Is that a 10? -Yes it's a 10".

So I'm not sure how much it means either. More than a FB post for sure.

I'm just trying to get a sense of how would they look, with all the signals sent to the world, if they don't bring him back.

Kirk Cousins is going to be the QB in 2017. Period. Full Stop.

The biggest concern right now is being in a bad position to sign him long term after 2017 because of hard feelings, missing the opportunity to sign him last year, market value, changing cap, yada yada.

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by DYoungJelly

Kirk Cousins is going to be the QB in 2017. Period. Full Stop.

The biggest concern right now is being in a bad position to sign him long term after 2017 because of hard feelings, missing the opportunity to sign him last year, market value, changing cap, yada yada.

Hope you are right.

Question though: if they fail to sign him long term this offseason, would you consider tag and trade a good option?

I would be mad because not signing him long term would be a huge mistake, but if we could get 2 first rounders, it would a lesser evil than losing him with nothing in exchange at the end of next season, wouldn't it?

[Schneed10]

Alexa, fast forward to March 9 because I can't take this shit anymore.

[metalskins]

Originally Posted by mooby

You know, a picture says a thousand words. To me, this picture says that someone from the Redskins edited together different photos of these players to form this picture.

No Garcon or Jackson in the picture...hhhhmmmm!

I'm still going on the premise that the 'skins will slap another FT on Cousins and use that as the basis of negotiation. I think he signs a long term deal, but not before the 'skins tag him.

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by metalskins

No Garcon or Jackson in the picture...hhhhmmmm!

I'm still going on the premise that the 'skins will slap another FT on Cousins and use that as the basis of negotiation. I think he signs a long term deal, but not before the 'skins tag him.

Why would he sign a long term deal if he's franchised? Thats an easy 24 million guaranteed, and then next year when he hits the open market he will get far more than he would this year from the Skins. You ONLY franchise him if you can't get a long term deal done and you think you can get something in a trade. But that's a dicey proposition. With a tag and trade, Cousins has to agree to the deal from the other team, and that money would probably be less than what he gets in the open market. Would he accept it if he thought he could get more down the road? Doubt it. So its basically, straight up long term deal this offseason, or we tag him and he walks next offseason and all we're left with is a compensatory pick and regret

But thats all hot air, I still think a long term deal will get done soon

[metalskins]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

Why would he sign a long term deal if he's franchised? Thats an easy 24 million guaranteed, and then next year when he hits the open market he will get far more than he would this year from the Skins. You ONLY franchise him if you can't get a long term deal done and you think you can get something in a trade. But that's a dicey proposition. With a tag and trade, Cousins has to agree to the deal from the other team, and that money would probably be less than what he gets in the open market. Would he accept it if he thought he could get more down the road? Doubt it. So its basically, straight up long term deal this offseason, or we tag him and he walks next offseason and all we're left with is a compensatory pick and regret

But thats all hot air, I still think a long term deal will get done soon

I'm thinking more in terms of the Redskins tagging Cousins with the exclusive, which would simply ensure that no matter what, Kirk Cousins is locked up for the 2017 season. The Redskins can still negotiate a contract with Cousins even if he's tagged. The tag would simply buy the 'skins time to negotiate a deal. If you're thinking that the 'skins can sign Cousins to a deal worth less than $24M/year, then you're going to be disappointed. The tag would essentially establish a baseline for negotiation.

Talks of trading Cousins would fall more into the category of the non-exclusive, which I did talk about a few weeks ago, but I don't see that as a likely avenue. However, if Cousins were to get the non-exclusive slapped on him, it's a sure bet the 'skins are moving him and simply want to get something in return.

There's no reason for Cousins' agent to want to negotiate with the Redskins right now. He would love nothing more than for Cousins to hit the open market, or at least, get another franchise tag of guaranteed money. Now, if the Redskins are willing to give Cousins exactly what he wants, plus some, then I'm sure his agent is all ears. Cousins does have a good thing going with the Redskins. He's in a system that he's comfortable with, he's had a lot of success and put up big numbers in this system, and the Redskins appear to be a team that is so close to being a consistent playoff team, so I'm sure Cousins would probably prefer to stay in Washington, but he's going to look out for #1 as well like anybody would.

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by metalskins

I'm thinking more in terms of the Redskins tagging Cousins with the exclusive, which would simply ensure that no matter what, Kirk Cousins is locked up for the 2017 season. The Redskins can still negotiate a contract with Cousins even if he's tagged. The tag would simply buy the 'skins time to negotiate a deal. If you're thinking that the 'skins can sign Cousins to a deal worth less than $24M/year, then you're going to be disappointed. The tag would essentially establish a baseline for negotiation.

Talks of trading Cousins would fall more into the category of the non-exclusive, which I did talk about a few weeks ago, but I don't see that as a likely avenue. However, if Cousins were to get the non-exclusive slapped on him, it's a sure bet the 'skins are moving him and simply want to get something in return.

There's no reason for Cousins' agent to want to negotiate with the Redskins right now. He would love nothing more than for Cousins to hit the open market, or at least, get another franchise tag of guaranteed money. Now, if the Redskins are willing to give Cousins exactly what he wants, plus some, then I'm sure his agent is all ears. Cousins does have a good thing going with the Redskins. He's in a system that he's comfortable with, he's had a lot of success and put up big numbers in this system, and the Redskins appear to be a team that is so close to being a consistent playoff team, so I'm sure Cousins would probably prefer to stay in Washington, but he's going to look out for #1 as well like anybody would.

Doesnt matter which tag it is, he'll trample the dog and run stop signs on his way to signing it. He will take that 24 million guaranteed and start dreaming of next offseason and the huge bidding war there will be for him. The negotiations with the Skins will effectively be over

Theres no need to tag him for the purpose of setting a baseline, the Skins already have an idea of what he wants. I think he wants to be here, its a great system, he's got a lot of good players around him. If you make him a competitive offer he will take it. If he doesnt, thats when you pull out the tag and see how much you can get for him

[mooby]

Tell me the last franchise quarterback that didn't get the exclusive tag, and I'll counterpoint and tell you that's an oxymoron because it never happened.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by mooby

Tell me the last franchise quarterback that didn't get the exclusive tag, and I'll counterpoint and tell you that's an oxymoron because it never happened.

Do you mean a QB who got the non-exclusive franchise tag? Like Matt Cassell in 2009 or Kirk Cousins last year?

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Do you mean a QB who got the non-exclusive franchise tag? Like Matt Cassell in 2009 or Kirk Cousins last year?

Look who's back, back again, Smack is back, tell a friend.