The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I think the transition tag in 2018 would be cheaper than the franchise tag or even a long-term contract.

Usually the 2nd year of a QB contract is extremely hard on the cap.

How so?? I'm asumming you're basing this off him being tagged this year??

DEHog wrote:

I think the transition tag in 2018 would be cheaper than the franchise tag or even a long-term contract.

Usually the 2nd year of a QB contract is extremely hard on the cap.

How so?? I'm asumming you're basing this off him being tagged this year??

I don't believe it would be cheaper than a LTD (guess it depends on how you look at it), but the transition tag next year would be like $28m vs. $34 for the franchise tag.

riggofan wrote:

DEHog wrote:

I think the transition tag in 2018 would be cheaper than the franchise tag or even a long-term contract.

Usually the 2nd year of a QB contract is extremely hard on the cap.

How so?? I'm asumming you're basing this off him being tagged this year??

I don't believe it would be cheaper than a LTD (guess it depends on how you look at it), but the transition tag next year would be like $28m vs. $34 for the franchise tag.

Yea me either, that's why I asked the question??

DEHog wrote:

I think the transition tag in 2018 would be cheaper than the franchise tag or even a long-term contract.

Usually the 2nd year of a QB contract is extremely hard on the cap.

How so?? I'm asumming you're basing this off him being tagged this year??

Because normally teams try to avoid paying any roster bonuses in the first year of a contract.

That typically results in a huge jump in guaranteed salary and cap hit the 2nd year.

I don't know about every QB contract. I do recall Aaron Rodgers' deal jumped almost $7MM from year one to year two.

If Cousins' contract did that, based on what the pundits are estimating he will be paid on a long-term deal, it would top $30MM the second year.

OUCH

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

DEHog wrote:

I think the transition tag in 2018 would be cheaper than the franchise tag or even a long-term contract.

Usually the 2nd year of a QB contract is extremely hard on the cap.

How so?? I'm asumming you're basing this off him being tagged this year??

Because normally teams try to avoid paying any roster bonuses in the first year of a contract.

That typically results in a huge jump in guaranteed salary and cap hit the 2nd year.

I don't know about every QB contract. I do recall Aaron Rodgers' deal jumped almost $7MM from year one to year two.

If Cousins' contract did that, based on what the pundits are estimating he will be paid on a long-term deal, it would top $30MM the second year.

OUCH

ok, While I don't see the Skins doing that, I see where you're coming from. Yes..oooouch!!

DEHog wrote:

riggofan wrote:Personally I think they should do that now. Let the market set the price on a long term deal and decide if you're willing to pay it or not.

Yep totally agree!!

I have said this in many conversations (outside this forum) on the topic. If Cousins wants a fair market value deal, let the market TRULY dictate his contract. IMHO, of the teams that would really want him, not many of them could truly "afford" his cap number (see HOU, DEN, NYJ, KC, BUF) ---- HOWEVER, you are also taking a HUGE risk in that CLE or SF (the #1 and #2 teams with respect to available cap space) could come in and throw up monster numbers just to get him. CHI could also do it; when you take away Cutler's contract they have a VERY healthy amount of cap space (4th most in the league).

Is the risk worth it? I don't think Cousins would come to terms with CLE, but SF could come in and drop a huge number on Cousins considering their cap situation. That being said, it is a HUGE risk on Kyle's part to drop $25+M on Cousins AND give up 2 picks, but crazier things have happened. Considering Cutler's contract, a $25M deal would only up CHI's cap by 10M. They could easily do it.

If it were me, I'd prefer to just sign him, but if he's asking for crazy money ---- one recent article said MORE than 25M --- I'd let him test the market. However, I am saying this not knowing the "match" deal and what that entails.

Update --- I just read that if Cousins comes to terms with another team while being tag as non-exclusive ---- then we only get a 3rd round compensatory pick. Therefore, SF or CLE can drive up the price --- to the point it would make it uncomfortable for us to match.

markshark84 wrote:

DEHog wrote:

riggofan wrote:Personally I think they should do that now. Let the market set the price on a long term deal and decide if you're willing to pay it or not.

Yep totally agree!!

I have said this in many conversations (outside this forum) on the topic. If Cousins wants a fair market value deal, let the market TRULY dictate his contract. IMHO, of the teams that would really want him, not many of them could truly "afford" his cap number (see HOU, DEN, NYJ, KC, BUF) ---- HOWEVER, you are also taking a HUGE risk in that CLE or SF (the #1 and #2 teams with respect to available cap space) could come in and throw up monster numbers just to get him. CHI could also do it; when you take away Cutler's contract they have a VERY healthy amount of cap space (4th most in the league).

Is the risk worth it? I don't think Cousins would come to terms with CLE, but SF could come in and drop a huge number on Cousins considering their cap situation. That being said, it is a HUGE risk on Kyle's part to drop $25+M on Cousins AND give up 2 picks, but crazier things have happened. Considering Cutler's contract, a $25M deal would only up CHI's cap by 10M. They could easily do it.

If it were me, I'd prefer to just sign him, but if he's asking for crazy money ---- one recent article said MORE than 25M --- I'd let him test the market. However, I am saying this not knowing the "match" deal and what that entails.

If they're going to "test the waters" they may as well just let him walk. 24 teams need a starting QB better than the one they currently have.

In the words of a now infamous football person, "If you don't have a quarterback you don't have (beep)!"

markshark84 wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:Absolutely not!
No way should we make Kirk the highest paid Qb.

The franchise tag makes the most sense unless Kirk accepts a deal that our F.O. thinks is fair.

Kyle Shanahan is interested. However he may not want to give up 2 first round picks. Even so if the 49ers offered this year's 1st and a 2nd or 3rd we should take it. Two 1st round picks can change the team immediately.

Look at what Dallas did.

I guess in a way you are 100% correct ---- those picks would make us immediately go from a playoff contender, to a bottom 5 club. If we got rid of Cousins and then drafted players similar to Scherff/Doctson ---- that would only make our team SIGNIFICANTLY worse. DAL is a different story completely and don't get the analogy. Are you saying that if we use 3 first round picks in 3 of the next 4 years on our OL (on top of their 2007 draft pick) to create the undisputed best OL in the game, then use the current 1st rounder to draft the best RB to come out since perhaps Pederson (or to run behind that OL), then draft a decent QB randomly in the later rounds, and play a last place schedule --- then we can count on being bounced in the 1st round of the playoffs..... Not sure 2 picks will do all that......

I agree that Cousins should not get a Luck deal --- no way. It needs to be team friendly ---- which can be done and he gets what he wants.

I however do not agree that we should franchise him --- unless we are willing to pay him 33M next year. You don't waste 2 1st round picks to keep Cousins for 1 year ---- because if he plays under the franchise tag in 2017, he's 100% gone in 2018..... and we get nothing for it.

The NFL network is reporting that Kirk Cousins will not sign a contract until he is franchise tagged.

Like I was saying we may have to take the best offer if our F.O. can't match.
In which case obviously two first round picks would do.

Our team has used two first round picks before on the Oline. One with Trent and one with Scherff. We could add another guard in the 2nd,3rd or 4th.

The top two Rb prospects in this draft are very talented. It would help this team tremendously if we added a guard and a really good Rb.

If we lose Kirk we should negotiate a first this year and next year since next year's Qb draft class is much stronger. Sam Darnald for starters looks good next year.

In the meanwhile if we do get the 49ers #2 pick in the draft I think we should take either Leonard Fournette or Dalvin Cook because I believe both are as good as Elliott. Or best defensive player.
With the no.17 pick we can go defense. Either way the more draft picks we have the better.

Can you imagine Cousins ending up in Cleveland?

I highly doubt it, but it would be tabloid gold seeing him up against RGIII...yet again!

(Yes I know RGIII will be probably be released. Still, this topic is about "predictions").

HEROHAMO wrote:The NFL network is reporting that Kirk Cousins will not sign a contract until he is franchise tagged.

Like I was saying we may have to take the best offer if our F.O. can't match.
In which case obviously two first round picks would do.

Our team has used two first round picks before on the Oline. One with Trent and one with Scherff. We could add another guard in the 2nd,3rd or 4th.

The top two Rb prospects in this draft are very talented. It would help this team tremendously if we added a guard and a really good Rb.

If we lose Kirk we should negotiate a first this year and next year since next year's Qb draft class is much stronger. Sam Darnald for starters looks good next year.

In the meanwhile if we do get the 49ers #2 pick in the draft I think we should take either Leonard Fournette or Dalvin Cook because I believe both are as good as Elliott. Or best defensive player.
With the no.17 pick we can go defense. Either way the more draft picks we have the better.

So you're saying that we should trade away Cousins if necessary and focus our efforts on OL and RB? I just don't get this. Even with those 2 picks, we are only upgrading a couple OLs and an RB --- and not focusing on the DEF. If we keep Cousins, we can just focus on the DEF. Without Cousins, we are spending everything we have to basically be worse than we were with Cousins. That being said --- if we lose Cousins, we have to and I would do something similar to what you are proposing (absent the #2 pick).

And everyone is talking about Darnold. If he has even a half-decent season ---- he's UNQUESTIONABLY going #1 overall. And the history of USC QBs isn't exactly stellar..... So, in order toe get Darnold, will we be the WORST team in the NFL next season without Cousins? We will be bad, top 5 bad, but I doubt the WORST. And if we are, all hell will break loss as Danny boy will lose his sh!t. Teams don't think with respect to "the season after this one" --- because that could cost them their jobs. It is dumb to think that way as things change so quickly and often. There are no "2 year plans" in the NFL --- unless it is your first year with the team.

And Cousins won't sign until he's franchised because now he is GUARANTEED the 24M. It's now on the redskins books. It gives him negotiating power. The thing is --- we CAN match. We have the cap room. Really it's whether Danny boy and his yes-boy Allen will approve paying him fair market value. Like some on here, I think they're still a little butt hurt that Scot and Gruden were right on the RGIII/Cousins situation.

On a side note, it would be crazy to use the #2 on one of those 2 RBs. With the #2, trading down would be optimal as there are a number of players that teams would trade up for and those guys aren't going top 5 unless a stupid team reaches. With respect to BOTH being as good as Elloitt --- to me, Elliott was the ONLY RB, perhaps in my adult life, that I would have used a top 5 pick on. In watching him in college, I was VERY impressed. FAR more impressed than I have been with either of those two.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:If they're going to "test the waters" they may as well just let him walk. 24 teams need a starting QB better than the one they currently have.

In the words of a now infamous football person, "If you don't have a quarterback you don't have (beep)!"

Agree with you, but that's the point of the transition tag. We don't have to let him walk. We can match any deal.

markshark84 wrote:Is the risk worth it?

I just don't see it as risk personally. If you want to keep him, you're going to have to pay him sooner or later. Just bite the freaking bullet. With the transition tag, at least you're negotiating against the actual market rather than what the agent is saying his value is.

The team created this mess last year. They need to quit compounding this mistake.

In response to markshark.

Kirk Cousins is a choker. That's why I could care less if we keep him. Gruden sucks as well. It wasn't until Scott arrived that both Gruden and Kirk had any kind of progress.

Kirk had multiple chances this season to get this team into the playoffs. He lost both match ups to the Cowboys.
Two times this season all we needed was one win and we were in. But no he wet the bed.

It's obvious Kirk and his agent are going to get the most money they can get. I don't blame him one bit.

Even though I know Kirk is just Mediocre. I have said before that we should offer a contract but not as the highest paid player in NFL history.

But it's not up to me or you. Kirk himself wants to get tagged at this point. No deal has been made yet so far it looks like he will be tagged until further notice.

You and many others believe we should just pay him market value. Which is what the franchise tag essentially pays in one year.

It's obvious Scott McCloughan does not feel Kirk is worth as much. Scott helped build a SuperBowl contender in San Francisco and a SuperBowl winner in Seattle. I agree with Scott.

To be honest your opinions suck. I doubt you have an athletic bone in your body.
Anybody with a clue who watched Kirk choke this last season can see as much. Had Gruden and Kirk got into the playoffs I wouldn't be saying this now. But the whole United States saw it unfold.

Take off your blinders and ask any non Redskins fan.

riggofan wrote:

markshark84 wrote:Is the risk worth it?

I just don't see it as risk personally. If you want to keep him, you're going to have to pay him sooner or later. Just bite the freaking bullet. With the transition tag, at least you're negotiating against the actual market rather than what the agent is saying his value is.

The team created this mess last year. They need to quit compounding this mistake.

The reality is (and its why it’s being reported that Cousins wants the tag) he doesn’t have to negotiate a long term deal or sign the FT. Cousins can easily force a trade by saying he’s not signing a LTD here and play under the tag this year (44 mil is a nice two year pay day!!) forcing the Skins hand next year. I don’t see any team giving up 2 number 1’s when they can just trade, they know the Skins won’t let him walk without getting nothing. So the Skins can do one of two things…let him hit to market to see he value or overpay him…either way you’ll find out sooner rather than later if he wants to be here. IMO you let him hit the market, find out his value (and the teams that want him) and either match it or work out a trade.

Kirk is going to sign the tag, without talking to any other clubs, thank the Skins for wanting him back and the big raise and focus on 2018. He'll play well again, maybe even better than in 2016 and look forward to being an absolutely free agent in 2018.

The Skins could trade him after he signs the tag but I think the compensation another team would offer for to just the right to have him one year wouldn't amount to much. Unless Kirk's side was cooperative and supportive of the trade and provided a wink and a nod to doing a LTD with the acquiring club I think the value offered wouldn't be worth the trade.

Not sure about Cousins but i do know that with the 1st pick in the draft the Redskins will take a WR. Crowder will be wanting good money next year and Garcon will be cap hell not this year but next year as well as Jackson. They will cut both of them and draft a WR going with Doctson Crowder and the 1st rounder for basically cheap money and stack the defense in Free Agency with or without Cousins. Cutting Garcon and Jackson is strictly good business. Garson is good and i would like to have him but if the Skins want to make their roster as good as it can with the least money which is a big deal the Redskins draft a WR with the 1st pick. It is the wise thing to do. I would rather have a stud pass rusher safety linebacker or RB but the salary cap wisest use of the money is to draft a WR Not to mention how a WR could help in the dreaded Red Zone which was a huge Achilles heel. Sorry Doctson. It just makes for a good decision on the field and the salary cap. Yes i should have the GM job.

Sonny9TD wrote:Not sure about Cousins but i do know that with the 1st pick in the draft the Redskins will take a WR. Cruder will be wanting good money next year and Garcon will be cap hell not this year but next year as well as Jackson. They will cut both of them and draft a WR going with Doctson Crowder and the 1st rounder for basically cheap money and stack the defense in Free Agency with or without Cousins. Cutting Garcon and Jackson is strictly good business. Garson is good and i would like to have him but if the Skins want to make their roster as good as it can with the least money which is a big deal the Redskins draft a WR with the 1st pick. It is the wise thing to do. I would rather have a stud pass rusher safety linebacker or RB but the salary cap wisest use of the money is to draft a WR

We don't have to cut DJ or Garcon, they are FA, we simply just have to not re-sign them. I think we bring Garcon back. He is the better of the two IMHO as he is willing to do the dirty work, and is a security blanket for KC. I also think he won't cost as much.

Yes not bring them back is what I meant. I hadn't got into the weeds about how to do that the best way.

HEROHAMO wrote:In response to markshark.

Kirk Cousins is a choker. That's why I could care less if we keep him. Gruden sucks as well. It wasn't until Scott arrived that both Gruden and Kirk had any kind of progress.

Kirk had multiple chances this season to get this team into the playoffs. He lost both match ups to the Cowboys.
Two times this season all we needed was one win and we were in. But no he wet the bed.

It's obvious Kirk and his agent are going to get the most money they can get. I don't blame him one bit.

Even though I know Kirk is just Mediocre. I have said before that we should offer a contract but not as the highest paid player in NFL history.

But it's not up to me or you. Kirk himself wants to get tagged at this point. No deal has been made yet so far it looks like he will be tagged until further notice.

You and many others believe we should just pay him market value. Which is what the franchise tag essentially pays in one year.

It's obvious Scott McCloughan does not feel Kirk is worth as much. Scott helped build a SuperBowl contender in San Francisco and a SuperBowl winner in Seattle. I agree with Scott.

To be honest your opinions suck. I doubt you have an athletic bone in your body.
Anybody with a clue who watched Kirk choke this last season can see as much. Had Gruden and Kirk got into the playoffs I wouldn't be saying this now. But the whole United States saw it unfold.

Take off your blinders and ask any non Redskins fan.

You do realize that this is not basketball right? You need more than 1 guy to get the job done. I'm not saying KC is in elite status, but I think we make the playoffs last year with him, if our defense wasn't historically bad, and our running game teriible.

We don't have to cut DJ or Garcon, they are FA, we simply just have to not re-sign them. I think we bring Garcon back. He is the better of the two IMHO as he is willing to do the dirty work, and is a security blanket for KC. I also think he won't cost as much.

Yes he is a security blanket and could be brought back but his cap hit next year will not be worth resigning him at 31 especially. Its time to move on. If we had the money I would definitely bring back Garcon. He is a move the chains WR. Its time for Crowder to take that role. To fix the defense the Skins need to let him go and pay Crowder as well next year which Garcons contract would make very difficult with all the needs we have

Sonny9TD wrote:We don't have to cut DJ or Garcon, they are FA, we simply just have to not re-sign them. I think we bring Garcon back. He is the better of the two IMHO as he is willing to do the dirty work, and is a security blanket for KC. I also think he won't cost as much.

Yes is a security blanket and could be brought back but his cap hit next year will not be worth resigning him at 31 especially. Its time to move on. If we had the money I would definitely bring back Garcon. He is a move the chains WR. Its time for Crowder to take that role. To fix the defense the Skins need to let him go.

I disagree. I think we can get him back for a reasonable deal, something along the lines of 3 years for $ 15 mill? I'm no expert on these things, but I think that deal is do-able.

"I disagree. I think we can get him back for a reasonable deal, something along the lines of 3 years for $ 15 mill? I'm no expert on these things, but I think that deal is do-able."


If he would take that then yes I would bring him back. But that is not going to happen. In my opinion of course

Its tough to gage what his vlaue is. Not many WRs make it to the age of 31 and are still quite productive like Garcon is. The only three who are even recently comparable, from an age point of view that I could see was Steve Smith, Brandon Marshall, and Larry Fitz.....all of which are HOFers. I think we can all agree that Garcon is not a HOFer. Smith signed a 3-10.5 deal when he was 34. Marshal I believe was 3-26 when he was 28, and Fitz has played the the last two years at I believe 2-22. Now, you average those out and its about 7.5 mill per year. This isn't exact math, there's a lot more that goes into these things, but I think Garcon is worth 5 mill per for another few years.

Garson wants at least 8 million. More like 10. He will not sign for 5 million. Seriously that will not happen.

What he wants, and what he gets offered are two different things. No one is paying a 31 year old above avg WR 10 mill per. I just don't see it happening. I want a 7 figure salary and a corner office, but I don't think I'm getting it any time soon.