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

riggofan wrote:

Burgundy&Wha? wrote:I argued with the Hogs Haven guy on Facebook about this very thing. It doesn't make any sense to me to claim Scot to be Kirk's champion when Cousins yelled "How you like me now?!?" in his face while rubbing his head. It was demeaning. It wasn't exuberance after a big win. None of that adds up. I suspect a lot of people will be proven wrong after all this yet the story told by the talking heads on ESPN will be different.

Its just impossible to know what to believe right now, and I wouldn't trust anything. I kind of agree with you, BGF, that I found this story about SM kind of hard to believe. On the other hand, the current offer from the Redskins for Cousins is basically insulting and a complete non-starter. Bruce & Dan could whip up a legit, starting QB deal for Cousins in a matter of hours if they wanted. Scot is gone and can't be blamed for that.

I'll just remind everyone like a week ago Ian Rapoport reported on Monday that the Redskins would DEFINITELY look to sign Cousins to a long term deal. Three days later he reported that the team would trade Cousins to the 49ers in a deal involving Tony Romo.

My guess is that its all going to be nonsense until after the draft. The team will take stock and decide what direction they need to go. Anyone think they might take a QB fairly high, play Cousins one more year on the tag and then move on?

I said all along that I don't think Scot was sold on Cousins, his "winning with a average QB" comment says it all IMO. When you give control to a GM you let him do his thing, if it's wrong then you fire him. Snyder just can't help himself, I think Scot wanted to trade Cousins, Snyder doesn't...now he had to!!

No I wouldn't let him play under the tag, get a competent GM and let them make the decsion on drafting a QB... in the mean time we roll with Colt.

SkinsJock wrote:Dan Snyder is not THE problem, he's just an owner that refuses to learn what it takes to be a responsible owner of a sports franchise

How is he not the problem when he's the sole person responsible for putting football-minds in position to lead the team? He is most definitely the problem. Until he learns this lesson, he will fail. That's what he's done and will continue to do.

obviously Scot did not have the power to get things done here or we would not be going through all this

everybody would love to get a competent GM and let him straighten things out - hell, I'd be happy if we got an incompetent GM, that had the power to do his job - that would still be an upgrade over what we have had here for many years

this idiot owner is not bringing in anyone that will not follow his lead on all things to do with players and coaches

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:Dan Snyder is not THE problem ...

How is he not the problem when he's the sole person responsible for putting football-minds in position to lead the team? He is most definitely the problem. Until he learns this lesson, he will fail. That's what he's done and will continue to do.

that's just semantics - even if Dan Snyder "learns" that he's the problem, it will not change things - he's not going away and until this franchise is managed by people that know what they are doing, it has zero chance for success

so yes, Dan is the 'problem' but even if he learns that, there is no guarantee that things will change here - he even brought back Joe Gibbs and look at what happened - the franchise was still in a mess because he was making decisions

Dan Snyder must be aware that he needs help managing this franchise, so he already has 'learned' that - until Dan Snyder turns over the football operation to guys that know what they are doing, this franchise has no chance at success

one thing we do know about Dan Snyder .. more spin to come, guaranteed

DEHog wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:Did someone miss the part where Scot McCloughan wanted to sign Kirk Cousins to a long term deal two years ago? It sure seems that way.

Says who...there's also a report that he wanted to trade him...

Now you don't have to take my word for it.

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/03/16/wash ... ruce-allen

What a total waste.

Drafting Cousins was for security. One of three things was going to happen:

1. RG3 doesn't pan out, but Cousins does, so we still have a starting QB for the future.

2. RG3 and Cousins both play well, so we trade Cousins for high draft picks.

3. Cousins sucks. No big deal, since we didn't draft him that high. He can be a cheap backup or stop-gap.


It turns out that RG3 didn't pan out and Cousins played well, BUT he's probably going to leave town without us getting any real value for him. It's the worst all-around situation that could have happened. Talk about a kick in the pants.

FWIW, Keim was asked about the SM/Cousins relationship on Twitter and responded that he knew for a fact that during training camp this season, SM was not sold on Cousins.

Cousins had his chance to squash these rumors with Adam Scheftner but did not. I know Adam didn't ask him specifically but if I was Cousins and this was a lie this would be the first thing I would squash.

StorminMormon86 wrote:FWIW, Keim was asked about the SM/Cousins relationship on Twitter and responded that he knew for a fact that during training camp this season, SM was not sold on Cousins.

I think that doesn't even need to be pointed out. I don't think anyone in the front office is sold on Cousins being the long-term guy. This is why he haven't been signed thus far.

DaSkinz Baby wrote:Thoughts??

http://www.csnmidatlantic.com/washingto ... News:22947

Wow so now we know the truth huh? This will either get Allen fired or Cousins will be screwed severely by bad play calling that will get him lit up like a Christmas Tree!!

The link didn't work or I didn't have access. Did Kirk Cousins actually say this is this more second hand speculation? Show me the video tape where Kirk says he will not sign a long term deal with the Skins unless Allen is gone. You make the claim where is the video of Kirk saying that?

OldSchool wrote:

DaSkinz Baby wrote:Thoughts??

http://www.csnmidatlantic.com/washingto ... News:22947

Wow so now we know the truth huh? This will either get Allen fired or Cousins will be screwed severely by bad play calling that will get him lit up like a Christmas Tree!!

The link didn't work or I didn't have access. Did Kirk Cousins actually say this is this more second hand speculation? Show me the video tape where Kirk says he will not sign a long term deal with the Skins unless Allen is gone. You make the claim where is the video of Kirk saying that?

I hope it is true. Allen is Vinny 2.0. Cousins knows that as long as Allen is here, he'll never play on a quality team with the talent necessary to win. Just look at our FO acquisitions..... we overpayed for inferior talent in every single case other than possibly Prior. Allen let Baker go only to pay an inferior DT the same money!!!! And I'm not even a Baker fan.

Whether true or not, it makes sense understanding that Cousins knows what it takes to win ---- and Allen isn't it.

That article MUST be true... 5 hours one summer night huh? Lol

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote: Now you don't have to take my word for it.

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/03/16/wash ... ruce-allen

Or mine..GM Scot McCloughan Was Fired for Wanting to Trade Kirk Cousins

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2697 ... rk-cousins

http://was.247sports.com/Bolt/Report-Sc ... s-51718441

DEHog wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote: Now you don't have to take my word for it.

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/03/16/wash ... ruce-allen

Or mine..GM Scot McCloughan Was Fired for Wanting to Trade Kirk Cousins

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2697 ... rk-cousins

http://was.247sports.com/Bolt/Report-Sc ... s-51718441

Yes, but we're talking about two very different timeframes here. Two years ago, when RGIII was benched and then given the inactive list permanently it would have been cheap to sign Kirk Cousins long term. That's when McCloughan wanted to do it. Now, Cousins is going to cost a fortune and it is hard to justify the price tag. Cousins' franchise tags are killing the ability of the team to keep players like Desean Jackson and to improve in other areas, namely defensively. Having said that, if this is true, and it's hard to know what to believe at this point, I disagree with trading Cousins. He's not Aaron Rodgers but he's better than 2/3rds of the starting quarterbacks in the league. The last twenty-five years have proven, if nothing else, that if you don;t have a starting quarterback you don't have anything. Did this franchise once again make a bad personnel move? Absolutely. This time, in the opposite direction of the ones they usually make. Instead of paying for a player when he was affordable they waited until he was in a position to set a new bar for quarterback salaries. That's on Bruce Allen. He's the money person. Putting that on McCloughan is complete crap. It's an excuse. A team can't have two general managers. McCloughan has two rings. Bruce Allen has a case of ADD, as in ain't done dick. But McCloughan is out and Allen is still around, proving Dan Snyder is the idiot we thought he was.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

DEHog wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote: Now you don't have to take my word for it.

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/03/16/wash ... ruce-allen

Or mine..GM Scot McCloughan Was Fired for Wanting to Trade Kirk Cousins

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2697 ... rk-cousins

http://was.247sports.com/Bolt/Report-Sc ... s-51718441

Yes, but we're talking about two very different timeframes here. Two years ago, when RGIII was benched and then given the inactive list permanently it would have been cheap to sign Kirk Cousins long term. That's when McCloughan wanted to do it. Now, Cousins is going to cost a fortune and it is hard to justify the price tag. Cousins' franchise tags are killing the ability of the team to keep players like Desean Jackson and to improve in other areas, namely defensively. Having said that, if this is true, and it's hard to know what to believe at this point, I disagree with trading Cousins. He's not Aaron Rodgers but he's better than 2/3rds of the starting quarterbacks in the league. The last twenty-five years have proven, if nothing else, that if you don;t have a starting quarterback you don't have anything. Did this franchise once again make a bad personnel move? Absolutely. This time, in the opposite direction of the ones they usually make. Instead of paying for a player when he was affordable they waited until he was in a position to set a new bar for quarterback salaries. That's on Bruce Allen. He's the money person. Putting that on McCloughan is complete crap. It's an excuse. A team can't have two general managers. McCloughan has two rings. Bruce Allen has a case of ADD, as in ain't done dick. But McCloughan is out and Allen is still around, proving Dan Snyder is the idiot we thought he was.

Agreed..well said!

Or the reverse: will Cousins sign long-term if Allen is fired?

Snyder fires everyone (except Joe Gibbs...and who would fire Gibbs?). Allen is likely to be pushed out, but there is no hint that Snyder will ever sell the team. Whether Snyder-Cerrato or Snyder-Allen we know that Little Dan will run the Redskins for a long time.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote: Yes, but we're talking about two very different timeframes here. Two years ago, when RGIII was benched and then given the inactive list permanently it would have been cheap to sign Kirk Cousins long term.

I'm still not clear about a couple things in that story. For one, the article says that he wanted to "extend" Cousins. Is that the same as a long term deal? Second, even if SM was advocating for that I'm kind of doubtful the team would have offered him the kind of deal that he would have signed at that moment.

I actually thought that part of the Breer SI story seemed the least believable. Just seemed like one of those things to put the best possible spin on McCloughan. Kind of unnecessary too IMO.

woulda, coulda, shoulda .... all that matters at this time is that the Redskins are not being managed properly - Dan Snyder has to stop interfering with the decision making process and a GM needs to be brought in and be given the authority to do his job - this is what we were led to believe was going on at Redskins Park

the Redskins have not been transparent about what has happened & it seems like we're going back to another version of Dumb & Dumber

It would seem to be vitally important to sign Kirk Cousins to a long term deal that still gives the team the financial ability to add and sign the other players - I'm not sure that that is likely to happen with these 2 bozos - it's not that Cousins does not like Dan or Bruce but he's less likely to think that having a long term deal with these bozos is a good thing for him

riggofan wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote: Yes, but we're talking about two very different timeframes here. Two years ago, when RGIII was benched and then given the inactive list permanently it would have been cheap to sign Kirk Cousins long term.

I'm still not clear about a couple things in that story. For one, the article says that he wanted to "extend" Cousins. Is that the same as a long term deal? Second, even if SM was advocating for that I'm kind of doubtful the team would have offered him the kind of deal that he would have signed at that moment.

I actually thought that part of the Breer SI story seemed the least believable. Just seemed like one of those things to put the best possible spin on McCloughan. Kind of unnecessary too IMO.

Cousins had to be extended because, at the time, he was on the last year of his rookie contract. He signed his rookie deal May 2012 for 4 years. That means 2015 was the last year of the deal. 2015 was they year McCloughan wanted to extend Cousins. It wouldn't have taken a huge contract to extend Cousins at the time because he had just taken over for the benched and inactive RGIII. As of the last game of the 2014 season, Cousins had a 1-4 record. That was December 28th, 2014. Cousins rookie deal expired the following March. March 2015. How much do you think it would have cost to extend his rookie deal at the time? Half of what it's going to cost now? $15 million a year? By any comparison it would have been infinitely cheaper to have done it then.

First time I had seen this:

Cousins has to be happy the Redskins turned down the chance to sign him for three years at a fully guaranteed $58.5 million price, which was his counteroffer to their first franchise tag.

~Bleacher Report

just more evidence:
1) what a huge mistake it was to make the trade for RG3

2) that this FO (who did not have much faith in Kirk Cousins) made a huge mistake in not getting something for Kirk Cousins

I'm not convinced that Kirk Cousins is a very good NFL QB and I'm glad that we don't have him anymore
that being said
it should have been obvious that some franchise would overpay for him and this FO should have gotten something for him

quick rehashing kirk...HE'S GONE!! ALEX is the man now...