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

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:I think he'd take one guaranteed year at the franchise tag salary over a two year deal elsewhere, and I just don't see teams offering more than that in any case, not even the Redskins.

If we put the tag on him, I don't think he'd have much of an option to choose.

I agree with what Irn-Bru just wrote. Think its in the interest of both parties to negotiate a deal rather than use the tag. I know its a good pay day for Cousins, but there is more security in a longer term deal. Both against injury and in his position as the starting QB. For the team, its a better financial situation and there is security as well. We have our QB for the next few years at least.

I also think its been a positive change with the team of keeping our own young guys in very recent years. Cousins seems to be a popular guy among the players, so that would be another good move in that regard.

I would think if the team indicated they were going to tag him, his agent would try to get a long term deal done instead. We'll see, I guess.

riggofan wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:I think he'd take one guaranteed year at the franchise tag salary over a two year deal elsewhere, and I just don't see teams offering more than that in any case, not even the Redskins.

If we put the tag on him, I don't think he'd have much of an option to choose.

I agree with what Irn-Bru just wrote. Think its in the interest of both parties to negotiate a deal rather than use the tag. I know its a good pay day for Cousins, but there is more security in a longer term deal. Both against injury and in his position as the starting QB. For the team, its a better financial situation and there is security as well. We have our QB for the next few years at least.

I also think its been a positive change with the team of keeping our own young guys in very recent years. Cousins seems to be a popular guy among the players, so that would be another good move in that regard.

I would think if the team indicated they were going to tag him, his agent would try to get a long term deal done instead. We'll see, I guess.

Maybe it was the way I worded it. I meant I think he'd take more money to play here for one year on a prove it deal instead of going elsewhere for a multiyear deal for far less money. If we guaranteed him $12 million this season I'm guessing that would be more than he would get in a guaranteed contract elsewhere, even on a three year deal. I know it gets some fan's panties in a bunch but the objective is to keep him here.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

riggofan wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:I think he'd take one guaranteed year at the franchise tag salary over a two year deal elsewhere, and I just don't see teams offering more than that in any case, not even the Redskins.

If we put the tag on him, I don't think he'd have much of an option to choose.

I agree with what Irn-Bru just wrote. Think its in the interest of both parties to negotiate a deal rather than use the tag. I know its a good pay day for Cousins, but there is more security in a longer term deal. Both against injury and in his position as the starting QB. For the team, its a better financial situation and there is security as well. We have our QB for the next few years at least.

I also think its been a positive change with the team of keeping our own young guys in very recent years. Cousins seems to be a popular guy among the players, so that would be another good move in that regard.

I would think if the team indicated they were going to tag him, his agent would try to get a long term deal done instead. We'll see, I guess.

Maybe it was the way I worded it. I meant I think he'd take more money to play here for one year on a prove it deal instead of going elsewhere for a multiyear deal for far less money. If we guaranteed him $12 million this season I'm guessing that would be more than he would get in a guaranteed contract elsewhere, even on a three year deal. I know it gets some fan's panties in a bunch but the objective is to keep him here.

If I understand you right, you're saying that he would accept a one year deal for around 12 mil? First it would be a insult to offer him that and why would he when he could force the Skins to use the FT and make 20 mil??

DEHog wrote:If I understand you right, you're saying that he would accept a one year deal for around 12 mil? First it would be a insult to offer him that and why would he when he could force the Skins to use the FT and make 20 mil??

I think the tag amount is around $17 million but his market value isn't nearly that high. He's more in the Nick Foles $9 million a year range based upon a fairly thorough analysis by Rich Tandler of CSN Washington.

http://realredskins.com/2015/11/17/what ... look-like/

I'm not sure why you think $12 million would be an insult considering he only made $660k this season.

Rather than belabor the point I think I'd ask that you read the writeup in the link. It summarizes my position fairly accurately and he's a much better writer.

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/12/01/kirk ... ington-nfl

Great read about Cousins. All of the stuff I've heard about him through the years is really making me pull for the guy. Also interesting to note that the BS stuff with friction between Cousins/Griffin is addressed in this article, and dismissed.

StorminMormon86 wrote:http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/12/01/kirk-cousins-washington-nfl

Great read about Cousins. All of the stuff I've heard about him through the years is really making me pull for the guy. Also interesting to note that the BS stuff with friction between Cousins/Griffin is addressed in this article, and dismissed.

Very nice! Thanks for sharing. I really didn't appreciate 'til now, how much time he spends trying to improve his play through film study and even reading books on the subject. I LIKE THAT! Go Kirk, go.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

DEHog wrote:If I understand you right, you're saying that he would accept a one year deal for around 12 mil? First it would be a insult to offer him that and why would he when he could force the Skins to use the FT and make 20 mil??

I think the tag amount is around $17 million but his market value isn't nearly that high. He's more in the Nick Foles $9 million a year range based upon a fairly thorough analysis by Rich Tandler of CSN Washington.

http://realredskins.com/2015/11/17/what ... look-like/

I'm not sure why you think $12 million would be an insult considering he only made $660k this season.

Rather than belabor the point I think I'd ask that you read the writeup in the link. It summarizes my position fairly accurately and he's a much better writer.

I can agree with the article and a 3 year deal for Cousins. I wasn’t talking about 12 mil being an insult; as much as I was talking about the 1 year deal. The article makes no mention of Kirk testing Free Agency, which if he did could force the Redskins to franchise him at 18.5 mil (that was last year’s price; I expect that would go up slightly). I think you have to figure this option into the equation because as a player you’re lucky to have leverage once maybe twice in your career. His agent would be doing a disservice if he didn’t explore free agency. This is a QB league and QB’s are getting overpaid every year and while the Skins my not feel he’s worth a certain price, other team(s) may. ..It only takes one! It’s kinda like real estate, only worse, he’s worth what someone is willing to pay but there is no appraisal process to protect the buyer from over paying.

DEHog wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

DEHog wrote:If I understand you right, you're saying that he would accept a one year deal for around 12 mil? First it would be a insult to offer him that and why would he when he could force the Skins to use the FT and make 20 mil??

I think the tag amount is around $17 million but his market value isn't nearly that high. He's more in the Nick Foles $9 million a year range based upon a fairly thorough analysis by Rich Tandler of CSN Washington.

http://realredskins.com/2015/11/17/what ... look-like/

I'm not sure why you think $12 million would be an insult considering he only made $660k this season.

Rather than belabor the point I think I'd ask that you read the writeup in the link. It summarizes my position fairly accurately and he's a much better writer.

I can agree with the article and a 3 year deal for Cousins. I wasn’t talking about 12 mil being an insult; as much as I was talking about the 1 year deal. The article makes no mention of Kirk testing Free Agency, which if he did could force the Redskins to franchise him at 18.5 mil (that was last year’s price; I expect that would go up slightly). I think you have to figure this option into the equation because as a player you’re lucky to have leverage once maybe twice in your career. His agent would be doing a disservice if he didn’t explore free agency. This is a QB league and QB’s are getting overpaid every year and while the Skins my not feel he’s worth a certain price, other team(s) may. ..It only takes one! It’s kinda like real estate, only worse, he’s worth what someone is willing to pay but there is no appraisal process to protect the buyer from over paying.

It got to the point where I was having two different discussions in this thread, one about the franchise tag and another about a three year deal, and my comments were overlapping. After having gone back and read the thread it was confusing even to me. My point about the one year deal was that it should not be insulting because, for a player who made $660k last season, the franchise tag amount would mean financial security for life. It would also give him the opportunity to show he's not a flash in the pan and earn that big money, long-term contract as opposed to the one Tandler talks about being a fair offer as of now.

One thing I think most of us concur with is the longer it goes without a deal in place the higher Kirk Cousins' price becomes. He may not be Aaron Rodgers but he's the best quarterback we've had in a very long time and his agent can prove it.

^^ Ok that makes sense and I think you're right about the longer it takes the more the price goes up. So the tag may make sense for the Skins, not sure how Cousins would feel?? The thing is if he gets tag he's makes 18/19 mil...so wouldn't any deal the Skins offer have to have more guaranteed money that that??

DEHog wrote:^^ Ok that makes sense and I think you're right about the longer it takes the more the price goes up. So the tag may make sense for the Skins, not sure how Cousins would feel?? The thing is if he gets tag he's makes 18/19 mil...so wouldn't any deal the Skins offer have to have more guaranteed money that that??

Not necessarily. They could offer him a three year deal with $15 million guaranteed and an incentives package that might still work out to less overall money in three years than he'd make in one season with the franchise tag.

Obviously we don't know the hard numbers yet but even a lowball estimate of the franchise tag at $17 million plus any lowball extension of, say $10 million a year for two seasons beyond the tag year would potentially put $37 million in Kirk's pocket. No three year deal is going to guarantee him that. And, again, those figures are ridiculously low. The actual numbers will be considerably higher. I think he's going to have to be given one hell of a signing bonus and a ton of like to be earned incentives to take a, to use a legal euphemism, "plea bargain" from the Washington Redskins. He doesn't have to. As John Riggins once said to Joe Gibbs, "You need me one hell of a lot more than I need you." Sincerely, Kirk Cousins.

And the above doesn't even account for the possibility of injury.

14 pages on this thread. Wow!

Thought John Keim's comments below on Cousins were pretty much on point. When you're talking about re-sign/not Cousins, its not so much about how good is he, is he elite, has he done enough, etc; Nobody can really answer those questions with 100% certainty one way or the other.

Its more about is he good enough and realistically are there better options.

Should I really believe Kirk Cousins is the quarterback of the future in Washington?

Keim: Todd, you've been around long enough to see how many quarterbacks of the future have come and gone in Washington. So if you're talking immediate future, yes, I think you can believe. If you're trying to look long range, hold off. Recent quarterbacks of the future: Robert Griffin III, Jason Campbell, Patrick Ramsey. Cousins has improved and will warrant a new deal barring a complete collapse. He's played well at home, not so well on the road. But he's the best quarterback on the roster, and, looking ahead, free agency is thin (Cousins will be one of the best available), and the draft looks sketchy. The Redskins, if they win a few more games, would be picking mid-first round, anyway. So, yes, believe in him for 2016 and do what always must be done with Redskins quarterbacks: reassess next season.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/ ... osite-ways

Of course, if we lose to Dallas on Monday night, I am 100% against re-signing him under any circumstance!

riggofan wrote:14 pages on this thread. Wow!

Thought John Keim's comments below on Cousins were pretty much on point. When you're talking about re-sign/not Cousins, its not so much about how good is he, is he elite, has he done enough, etc; Nobody can really answer those questions with 100% certainty one way or the other.

Its more about is he good enough and realistically are there better options.

Should I really believe Kirk Cousins is the quarterback of the future in Washington?

Keim: Todd, you've been around long enough to see how many quarterbacks of the future have come and gone in Washington. So if you're talking immediate future, yes, I think you can believe. If you're trying to look long range, hold off. Recent quarterbacks of the future: Robert Griffin III, Jason Campbell, Patrick Ramsey. Cousins has improved and will warrant a new deal barring a complete collapse. He's played well at home, not so well on the road. But he's the best quarterback on the roster, and, looking ahead, free agency is thin (Cousins will be one of the best available), and the draft looks sketchy. The Redskins, if they win a few more games, would be picking mid-first round, anyway. So, yes, believe in him for 2016 and do what always must be done with Redskins quarterbacks: reassess next season.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/ ... osite-ways

Of course, if we lose to Dallas on Monday night, I am 100% against re-signing him under any circumstance!

It's looking more and more like he'll be FT. Skins were going to pay around 16 mil either way for a QB next year, the tag is a gamble on both sides but may be the best solution going into next year??

DEHog wrote:

riggofan wrote:14 pages on this thread. Wow!

Thought John Keim's comments below on Cousins were pretty much on point. When you're talking about re-sign/not Cousins, its not so much about how good is he, is he elite, has he done enough, etc; Nobody can really answer those questions with 100% certainty one way or the other.

Its more about is he good enough and realistically are there better options.

Should I really believe Kirk Cousins is the quarterback of the future in Washington?

Keim: Todd, you've been around long enough to see how many quarterbacks of the future have come and gone in Washington. So if you're talking immediate future, yes, I think you can believe. If you're trying to look long range, hold off. Recent quarterbacks of the future: Robert Griffin III, Jason Campbell, Patrick Ramsey. Cousins has improved and will warrant a new deal barring a complete collapse. He's played well at home, not so well on the road. But he's the best quarterback on the roster, and, looking ahead, free agency is thin (Cousins will be one of the best available), and the draft looks sketchy. The Redskins, if they win a few more games, would be picking mid-first round, anyway. So, yes, believe in him for 2016 and do what always must be done with Redskins quarterbacks: reassess next season.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/ ... osite-ways

Of course, if we lose to Dallas on Monday night, I am 100% against re-signing him under any circumstance!

It's looking more and more like he'll be FT. Skins were going to pay around 16 mil either way for a QB next year, the tag is a gamble on both sides but may be the best solution going into next year??

15 pages now.

The other issue from Cousins' standpoint is: Yes, he could prove that he's not a one hit wonder but what if he is? What if he's the next RGIII and goes from hero to zero?

I think standard operating procedure amongst NFL agents is to get as much guaranteed money immediately as possible with a player like Cousins.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:I hope we don't franchise tag him. That would indicate a significant failure on the part of our front office. We'd not only be overpaying, but we wouldn't have any guarantees that he'd be here the next year, either. That's not the game we should be playing. Lock him down now, for a sum of money that strikes most (but not all) people as "overpaying." In three years' time it won't look like we overpaid.

I think we'd have to give him a three year incentive-loaded deal with a huge signing bonus to keep him here.

I don't think so. No need to make the deal incentive-loaded; just give him an average annual salary that's a bit higher than the range of the quarterbacks he stacks up against. Something below Tannehill but above, say, Foles/Bradford. I would not be complaining with a $15/yr salary over 3-4 years. In fact, I don't even think that could be considered overpaying, but don't you agree that might be enough to get a deal done?

If we let it go to a franchise tag or compete after he hits free agency, we will definitely be overpaying and shouldering more risk than we need to.

It's a tough call. Either you overpay a lot to keep him here for another "prove it" year or you overpay a lot (but still less than the franchise tag) to keep him here longer than maybe you're comfortable with. I'm going to trust Scot McCloughan to do the right thing, whatever that is.

Me too. My own opinion is that we should keep him here for at least 3-4 years and see how it goes. It's a pretty safe bet at this point that he can be at least a competent starter for us during that time.

Irn-Bru wrote:I don't think so. No need to make the deal incentive-loaded; just give him an average annual salary that's a bit higher than the range of the quarterbacks he stacks up against. Something below Tannehill but above, say, Foles/Bradford. I would not be complaining with a $15/yr salary over 3-4 years. In fact, I don't even think that could be considered overpaying, but don't you agree that might be enough to get a deal done?

If we let it go to a franchise tag or compete after he hits free agency, we will definitely be overpaying and shouldering more risk than we need to.

My own opinion is that we should keep him here for at least 3-4 years and see how it goes. It's a pretty safe bet at this point that he can be at least a competent starter for us during that time.

I really think it depends on the guaranteed money. If the franchise tag is $18 million this season then I think the signing bonus would have to be equal to that over the length of the contract for his agent to even consider a long-term deal.
I just don't see a player in Cousins' position giving up guaranteed money either way. If he were already financially secure he might "take one for the team" but I think in this instance the team is going to end up taking one for Kirk Cousins.

I'm fully on board with the three year deal. I simply don't think there will be a more appealing option in that time frame and if Cousins continues on his current path there won't be one in three years either.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:I don't think so. No need to make the deal incentive-loaded; just give him an average annual salary that's a bit higher than the range of the quarterbacks he stacks up against. Something below Tannehill but above, say, Foles/Bradford. I would not be complaining with a $15/yr salary over 3-4 years. In fact, I don't even think that could be considered overpaying, but don't you agree that might be enough to get a deal done?

If we let it go to a franchise tag or compete after he hits free agency, we will definitely be overpaying and shouldering more risk than we need to.

My own opinion is that we should keep him here for at least 3-4 years and see how it goes. It's a pretty safe bet at this point that he can be at least a competent starter for us during that time.

I really think it depends on the guaranteed money. If the franchise tag is $18 million this season then I think the signing bonus would have to be equal to that over the length of the contract for his agent to even consider a long-term deal.
I just don't see a player in Cousins' position giving up guaranteed money either way. If he were already financially secure he might "take one for the team" but I think in this instance the team is going to end up taking one for Kirk Cousins.

I'm fully on board with the three year deal. I simply don't think there will be a more appealing option in that time frame and if Cousins continues on his current path there won't be one in three years either.

I agree with this more than what you said here...They could offer him a three year deal with $15 million guaranteed and an incentives package. As I said I think the signing bonus has to be more than the FT would bring him. I posted all the QB salaries and IB is in the ball park with what they may have to pay to keep him from Free Agency.

DEHog wrote:I agree with this more than what you said here...They could offer him a three year deal with $15 million guaranteed and an incentives package. As I said I think the signing bonus has to be more than the FT would bring him. I posted all the QB salaries and IB is in the ball park with what they may have to pay to keep him from Free Agency.

I would be surprised if $15 mill guaranteed was all it took, honestly. Kerrigan got a $16 mill signing bonus, for example, and QBs are paid more than even rush linebackers.

Burgundy&GoldForever"
The other issue from Cousins' standpoint is: Yes, he could prove that he's not a one hit wonder but what if he is? What if he's the next RGIII and goes from hero to zero?

Yea maybe, but I feel more secure with signing Cousins knowing that a real GM is making the decisions on filling in the pieces around him.

PulpExposure wrote:

DEHog wrote:I agree with this more than what you said here...They could offer him a three year deal with $15 million guaranteed and an incentives package. As I said I think the signing bonus has to be more than the FT would bring him. I posted all the QB salaries and IB is in the ball park with what they may have to pay to keep him from Free Agency.

I would be surprised if $15 mill guaranteed was all it took, honestly. Kerrigan got a $16 mill signing bonus, for example, and QBs are paid more than even rush linebackers.

Agreed, why play for 15/16 guaranteed over three years when you could play one for 18 mil? If he doesn't do well he's got 18 mil, if he does well he'll be in line for a huge payday!!

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:The other issue from Cousins' standpoint is: Yes, he could prove that he's not a one hit wonder but what if he is? What if he's the next RGIII and goes from hero to zero?

Anything is possible, but if he continues to improve throughout the rest of the season, I'd say it's unlikely.

DEHog wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever"
The other issue from Cousins' standpoint is: Yes, he could prove that he's not a one hit wonder but what if he is? What if he's the next RGIII and goes from hero to zero?

Yea maybe, but I feel more secure with signing Cousins knowing that a real GM is making the decisions on filling in the pieces around him.

Absolutely. I also feel confident in our GM, who has demonstrably proven how much he values the offensive line by not only drafting a lineman with the #5 overall pick but also by hiring Bill Callahan.

I think Cousins knows he has every opportunity to succeed here and that's one home field advantage we have in negotiations.

DEHog wrote:Agreed, why play for 15/16 guaranteed over three years when you could play one for 18 mil? If he doesn't do well he's got 18 mil, if he does well he'll be in line for a huge payday!!

lol. I don't think 15 over three years is remotely in the ball park for a starting QB. That's like the money they pay the left guard.

When you hear $15m three years, they're talking per year which is reasonable for a quarterback.

riggofan wrote:

DEHog wrote:Agreed, why play for 15/16 guaranteed over three years when you could play one for 18 mil? If he doesn't do well he's got 18 mil, if he does well he'll be in line for a huge payday!!

lol. I don't think 15 over three years is remotely in the ball park for a starting QB. That's like the money they pay the left guard.

When you hear $15m three years, they're talking per year which is reasonable for a quarterback.

Exactly, not sure why anyone would think 15 mil would get it done? At the end of the day it’s only the guaranteed money that counts…I think it’s going to start at the 35/40 mil range for three years to get Kirk to the table (if he finishes strong)??

DEHog wrote:Exactly, not sure why anyone would think 15 mil would get it done? At the end of the day it’s only the guaranteed money that counts…I think it’s going to start at the 35/40 mil range for three years to get Kirk to the table (if he finishes strong)??

Agree. People are in a total dream world if they think $15M over 3 is going to do anything except piss Cousins off.

If you look current QB contracts:
- Not one single starting re-signed NFL QB makes less than $15M guaranteed.
- Alex Smith gets $45M guaranteed.
- Bortles got a signing bonus of $13M+ as a rookie; Winston got $16M+
- Most signing bonuses for NFL starters are in the $25M range.

If Scot threw out a 3 year, $15M guaranteed number, I would expect Cousins to walk (or rather run) as that would mean the team is still not committed to him. And I would think that based on the history and overwhelming favoritism given to RGIII over the past couple years, Cousins would be at least a little hesitant to re-sign here. The number will have to be fairly large.

If he isn't franchised, I would expect a 5 yr., $25-30M guaranteed, ($70M+ overall) backloaded contract. Give him a signing bonus of $20M (combined with early roster bonuses) and yr 1 & 2 salary combined total of around $8M and the remaining years around $12-14M annually. That is market value, IMHO. It honestly could be higher on the guaranteed side. That would at least show him we're invested, but give us the option after year 3 to cut him with about an $8M dead cap hit.

Honestly in looking at that, I am not sure what I would do. It is almost better to franchise him. Pay him $18.5M next season and allow yourself the opportunity to show you are invested in him by cutting RGIII and making him "the man". That may actually help cut the cost of his next contract and give us the opportunity to see more of his play. Then again, if you franchise him and then make a deal, we are looking at paying him roughly $45M over two years in the $18.5M 2016 salary, $20-25M 2017 signing bonus, and $5-8M 2017 salary....

Honestly, I do think that Cousins wants to gamble on himself, which means that, unless he is blown away by a "lock him down" offer from the Redskins BEFORE the start of free agency, he will test the market... and there WILL be significant offers from other desperate teams... He would be perfectly happy being tagged, as well, as it will give him the opportunity to polish his resume, while paying him top dollar to invest for his fiscal future. Either way, unless he suffers a catastrophic injury, he gets a really good deal for himself.

I don't believe the Redskins are willing to gamble, though. They will make a reasonable, good faith effort to achieve a deal, but is still think the odds are that Cousins gets tagged, assuming he suffers no disasters of his own creation. The team DOES NOT want Kirk to hit the market...