Just hand kirk a blank check...

[riggofan]

The Seahawks lost Bennett and Irvin and others because they couldn't afford to pay all of their players

Michael Bennett is on a four year deal with the Seahawks, are you talking about another Bennett? The team has locked up Wilson, Wagner, Kam Chancellor, Earl Thomas, Sherman, Baldwin, KJ Wright, Brandon Mebane, Michael Bennett and Cliff Avril. Basically their entire beast defense, and somehow found the cash to sign Jimmy freaking Graham. And they're probably the best team in the NFC.

They couldn't afford to keep 29 year old Bruce Irvin. They're clearly making it work.

[markshark84]

When we drafted RG3, I thought that Mike would help him become an NFL QB

when Cousins became the starting QB it looked like he was going to be a turnover machine

Cousins has become a lot better QB than I thought he would be

Re your "turnover machine" comment --- that is where your bias came in. Cousins was a rookie or at least essentially a rookie (based on experience) up and until the second half of last season. MOST pro-style rookie/inexperienced QBs turn the ball over frequently. The fact some didn't take that into account, IMHO was due to just not understanding the game of football in general or, more likely, an inherent biased against Cousins and, in a way, the desire to see him fail --- because if Cousins failed, the RGIII experiment wasn't RGIII's fault, but the coaching, support, etc. And, if RGIII wasn't the source of his failures, then the people supporting RGIII weren't wrong.

For me, Cousins is currently playing exactly as I thought he COULD. Did I think he would get there..... I wasn't sure because football is a team game. We are seeing with Luck in Indy how important support is, even when you are an "elite" QB.

I am just waiting for someone to explain how we can pay all the other players we need to pay to ensure we continue to get better - there are many examples of franchises paying players a lot of money and having to let other good players go and then they are not as good

the question remains - how do we ensure that does not happen here?

Sign all the players we "need". We can do that. I posted something on this in the "Cousins and the cap" thread. We have room. Scot did a good job at leaning out or roster. He is the ONLY reason I have any optimism after 2 decades behind an IDIOT owner. But IMHO, signing players is FAR FAR FAR less important than drafting well.

When it comes to signing players and then they are not as good --- that typically happens when you sign a FA from another team. And typically that happens because they were in a scheme that was perfect for them, and decided to walk and take a bigger check. Those types of players typically don't have the drive that players who stay do. Personally, I think that Cousins is the type of player that, while he wants to get paid, also loves the game and is a student of the game as well as having a chip on his shoulder. Those types of players tend to continue improving and stay driven.

HOWEVER ---- at the end of the day, the question you posed is one that the FO needs to evaluate and factor into their determination...... although I don't think (at least as it relates to Cousins) is one that is difficult to conclude on.

[riggofan]

You should never draft for need. That doesn't mean you should go out and break the bank on the most expensive free agents out there either just because you need help at safety.

I agree but that leaves holes in the roster that have to be filled with talent, not just bodies. Safety is almost as difficult to fill as quarterback if the Redskins history is any indicator.

I almost think a team has to overpay for one in free agency. We tried the converted cornerback thing and failed. We tried the waiver wire thing and failed. We drafted a safety and put him at linebacker.

I get what you're saying, but I still don't agree that you overpay for a guy just because you need a safety. If you overpay for a guy who doesn't vastly improve your team like Josh Norman, what's the point? Plug a Whitner or Iheanacho in and pay for talent at another position.

I also think we can get safety help in the draft. There were a bunch of guys drafted this spring who are starting for teams this year.

[Burgundy&GoldForever]

You should never draft for need. That doesn't mean you should go out and break the bank on the most expensive free agents out there either just because you need help at safety.

I agree but that leaves holes in the roster that have to be filled with talent, not just bodies. Safety is almost as difficult to fill as quarterback if the Redskins history is any indicator.

I almost think a team has to overpay for one in free agency. We tried the converted cornerback thing and failed. We tried the waiver wire thing and failed. We drafted a safety and put him at linebacker.

I get what you're saying, but I still don't agree that you overpay for a guy just because you need a safety. If you overpay for a guy who doesn't vastly improve your team like Josh Norman, what's the point? Plug a Whitner or Iheanacho in and pay for talent at another position.

I also think we can get safety help in the draft. There were a bunch of guys drafted this spring who are starting for teams this year.

I'm going to have to poke through the draft prospects when we're closer to knowing where we'll likely be drafting and see if anyone catches my attention as a possible safety.

It's really the biggest weakness on the defense. Every time there's a blown coverage or a missed tackle it's one of the safeties. At least it seems that way.

[riggofan]

It's really the biggest weakness on the defense. Every time there's a blown coverage or a missed tackle it's one of the safeties. At least it seems that way.

Seems like it also the nature of the position. When the safety makes a mistake or misses a tackle or whatever, its usually a big freaking problem. hah.

So weird btw. I swear the past few weeks I've been hearing relatively good things about Donte Whitner and even Ihenacho, Whitner mainly though. He had a rough game v. the Packers.

[StorminMormon86]

The fact some didn't take that into account, IMHO was due to just not understanding the game of football in general or, more likely, an inherent biased against Cousins and, in a way, the desire to see him fail --- because if Cousins failed, the RGIII experiment wasn't RGIII's fault, but the coaching, support, etc. And, if RGIII wasn't the source of his failures, then the people supporting RGIII weren't wrong.

It had nothing to do with a lack of understanding football and everything to do with a bias against Cousins because he unseated Griffin as the starter.

[riggofan]

The fact some didn't take that into account, IMHO was due to just not understanding the game of football in general or, more likely, an inherent biased against Cousins and, in a way, the desire to see him fail --- because if Cousins failed, the RGIII experiment wasn't RGIII's fault, but the coaching, support, etc. And, if RGIII wasn't the source of his failures, then the people supporting RGIII weren't wrong.

It had nothing to do with a lack of understanding football and everything to do with a bias against Cousins because he unseated Griffin as the starter.

There was definitely some of that.

Personally my skepticism over Cousins was just the circumstances and draft position. I don't think there was anything crazy about it. RG3 was the second pick in the draft, we gave up multiple first rounders to get him and he was drafted by a guy I would consider a knowledgeable football coach. Cousins was a fourth round pick, picked behind numerous other QBs. We know there was more to it behind the scenes now, but that's how it looked at the time.

I feel the same way about Cousins now as I did about Griffin then. You have to give these guys a reasonable amount of time, large enough sample of games to judge them. Griffin even more so, IMO, because of the huge cost involved in drafting him. Shouldn't be anything wrong with changing your opinion of players or admitting you were wrong about them after seeing them play over several seasons.

[StorminMormon86]

Personally my skepticism over Cousins was just the circumstances and draft position. I don't think there was anything crazy about it. RG3 was the second pick in the draft, we gave up multiple first rounders to get him and he was drafted by a guy I would consider a knowledgeable football coach. Cousins was a fourth round pick, picked behind numerous other QBs. We know there was more to it behind the scenes now, but that's how it looked at the time.

Which was rational. Most rational posters picked the "jury's still out" option earlier this year in whether or not Cousins was "fool's gold". People needed to see more from him. Personally, I wished we would have went back to him in 2014 when McCoy got hurt, because I was convinced that he needed more time. It's just inconceivable to me how many hold outs there were last year and even still right now.

[riggofan]

Personally my skepticism over Cousins was just the circumstances and draft position. I don't think there was anything crazy about it. RG3 was the second pick in the draft, we gave up multiple first rounders to get him and he was drafted by a guy I would consider a knowledgeable football coach. Cousins was a fourth round pick, picked behind numerous other QBs. We know there was more to it behind the scenes now, but that's how it looked at the time.

Which was rational. Most rational posters picked the "jury's still out" option earlier this year in whether or not Cousins was "fool's gold". People needed to see more from him. Personally, I wished we would have went back to him in 2014 when McCoy got hurt, because I was convinced that he needed more time. It's just inconceivable to me how many hold outs there were last year and even still right now.

They'll come a-trolling the first time Cousins has a bad game. Because no "good" quarterback has a bad game. Or loses. Ever.

[Burgundy&GoldForever]

Personally my skepticism over Cousins was just the circumstances and draft position. I don't think there was anything crazy about it. RG3 was the second pick in the draft, we gave up multiple first rounders to get him and he was drafted by a guy I would consider a knowledgeable football coach. Cousins was a fourth round pick, picked behind numerous other QBs. We know there was more to it behind the scenes now, but that's how it looked at the time.

Which was rational. Most rational posters picked the "jury's still out" option earlier this year in whether or not Cousins was "fool's gold". People needed to see more from him. Personally, I wished we would have went back to him in 2014 when McCoy got hurt, because I was convinced that he needed more time. It's just inconceivable to me how many hold outs there were last year and even still right now.

They'll come a-trolling the first time Cousins has a bad game. Because no "good" quarterback has a bad game. Or loses. Ever.

The jury is still out. He's turning into one hell of a regular season quarterback. That's a big deal because we haven't had one since Mark Brunell.

I still need to see playoff performance and so does Scot McCloughan. That's the one negotiating point the team has in its favor right now.

If Cousins wins a playoff game that loophole in contract negotiations closes. It's the only one left.

[riggofan]

I still need to see playoff performance and so does Scot McCloughan. That's the one negotiating point the team has in its favor right now.

If Cousins wins a playoff game that loophole in contract negotiations closes. It's the only one left.

I get your point, but I don't get that. A playoff game is still just one game. Losing (or even winning) that game doesn't necessarily say anything about Cousins. Its a checkbox to mark off, I guess.

[SkinsJock]

Cousins is going to get a huge contract -
1) there's nobody coming out of the draft that's a can't miss, NFL starting QB
2) there's no other NFL QB that's available, that's even close to playing as well

we can finish 8-8 or we can make the playoffs and lose a playoff game - Cousins still gets a a $22M-$24M deal

the FO seems to think that he just doesn't "look like" a really good QB but in today's market and with the circumstances stated above, Cousins gets a huge contract

Cousins may not be a HOF QB but he's proven that he's a winner - pay the man

[riggofan]

1) there's nobody coming out of the draft that's a can't miss, NFL starting QB

hah don't ever say that. By late March, you know there will be teams falling all over themselves to trade up for the Jared Goff of 2017!

More to the point, there's no reason to expect that we would be in draft position to land a supposedly can't miss, top guy.

[Burgundy&GoldForever]

I still need to see playoff performance and so does Scot McCloughan. That's the one negotiating point the team has in its favor right now.

If Cousins wins a playoff game that loophole in contract negotiations closes. It's the only one left.

I get your point, but I don't get that. A playoff game is still just one game. Losing (or even winning) that game doesn't necessarily say anything about Cousins. Its a checkbox to mark off, I guess.

It's a completely different type of pressure. Every mistake is magnified. You should know if a QB can play through that level of pressure before you mortgage the farm on him.

I think we all know Cousins is going to get a contract that sets a new bar for quarterbacks. The writing is on the wall.

But, if they did want to come up with a legitimate reason to haggle that would be one.

[SkinsJock]

Cousins has proved himself already - his value is already over $20M and growing

[StorminMormon86]

The jury is still out. He's turning into one hell of a regular season quarterback. That's a big deal because we haven't had one since Mark Brunell.

I still need to see playoff performance and so does Scot McCloughan. That's the one negotiating point the team has in its favor right now.

If Cousins wins a playoff game that loophole in contract negotiations closes. It's the only one left.

So if we lose a playoff game 45-42, Cousins is out? Is it a good playoff performance from Cousins, or a win? Because one is not dependent on the other.

[SkinsJock]

The jury is still out. He's turning into one hell of a regular season quarterback. That's a big deal because we haven't had one since Mark Brunell. I still need to see playoff performance and so does Scot McCloughan. That's the one negotiating point the team has in its favor right now. If Cousins wins a playoff game that loophole in contract negotiations closes. It's the only one left.

The FO may feel that Cousins is not worth $22M-$24M but Cousins has done what he needed to do - early this year, there was some skepticism about his body of work but he has shown that he can play QB - unless he implodes these next 6 games and even if we finish with only 8 or 9 wins, Cousins future is assured - he gets a huge contract and hopefully he's playing here

Cousins does not need a playoff win - he's done gone and killed it this season

the FO should lock up Cousins and find someone to take over after a few more years ..... or more

actually, they should give him a blank check, if he shows he's more interested in the money than the team, they cancel the check

[Burgundy&GoldForever]

So if we lose a playoff game 45-42, Cousins is out? Is it a good playoff performance from Cousins, or a win? Because one is not dependent on the other.

No, there isn't any guarantee we even get to the playoffs.

But, if we do, and we lose by any score to Kirk Cousins *sh$t* the bed it certainly hurts his argument for a huge contract.

[riggofan]

I still need to see playoff performance and so does Scot McCloughan. That's the one negotiating point the team has in its favor right now.

If Cousins wins a playoff game that loophole in contract negotiations closes. It's the only one left.

I get your point, but I don't get that. A playoff game is still just one game. Losing (or even winning) that game doesn't necessarily say anything about Cousins. Its a checkbox to mark off, I guess.

It's a completely different type of pressure. Every mistake is magnified. You should know if a QB can play through that level of pressure before you mortgage the farm on him.

I don't doubt any of that, but Cousins could play well and still lose a playoff game. He could also play like @$$ and the team somehow wins.

I understand what you're saying, probably just needed a finer point on it.

[Burgundy&GoldForever]

I don't doubt any of that, but Cousins could play well and still lose a playoff game. He could also play like @$$ and the team somehow wins.

I understand what you're saying, probably just needed a finer point on it.

I'm taking the long way around on saying I think Scot McCloughan has a figure in his head and that the only thing that could change that figure at this point is how Cousins performs in the playoffs, if we get there.

I've been talking about if Cousins craps the bed but what if he does the opposite? What if he carries the team to the Conference Championship?

[HEROHAMO]

This is the first time I've seen Kirk dominate like a Peyton or Brady would. I was happy to see fans so fired up.

However if Kirk can "dominate" on a consistent basis then yes he deserves a big contract. Get this team to the playoffs first. It's one game against a terrible Green Bay team. It's not like we played the Seahawks. Actually beat the Pukes today is what I want. Heck avenge the loss at home.

[HEROHAMO]

It's all about wins and productivity.

If we win the Big one with Kirk as the Mvp. Then Kirk deserves the biggest contract. I think an NFC Championship would also demand a big contract.

The season has to play out. It's a tough schedule ahead. If Kirk pulls this off he has more then earned it.

[HEROHAMO]

However don't try and tell me Kirk earned a big contract after beating a bad Green Bay team. We still aren't leading the division and we aren't in the playoffs yet. We still got beat at home by our most hated rival. There's more work to do!

[Deadskins]

we can finish 8-8

No, we can't.

[SkinsJock]

we can finish 8-8

No, we can't.

the point is it makes no difference what the win loss record is