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

SkinsJock wrote::twisted: I love stirring this pot ...

please go for it Kirk - don't be a wimp, grab the opportunity with both hands ...

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

riggofan wrote:Oh my god man. Do you just copy and paste this comment every three days? I'm beginning to think you are actually a bot on the Internet.

We may not agree on Cousins but we agree the site needs a mute feature.

riggofan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:
I agree. It altered the market for top end quarterbacks. Cousins isn't one of those.

Exactly.

You guys would be 100% right if not for math. Continue to agree with each other though and see if it changes anything.

Your statement is just demonstrably false. Kirk Cousins is a franchise tagged QB. Luck's deal just altered the franchise tag amount for QBs. Therefore, he altered the market for Kirk Cousins.

I look forward Deadskins making some tangential argument against this somehow tying in Tom Brady to argue against numbers.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:we agree the site needs a mute feature.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote: .. Scot McCloughan isn't going to mortgage the future of the organization for a player who really hasn't proven anything that matters in terms of being a top tier quarterback.
Cousins has done some nice things but he hasn't done any of the things top quarterbacks get paid for doing.

1) He hasn't won the games he's not supposed to win, the ones against teams with winning records.
2) He hasn't won playoff games.
3) He hasn't been the best player at his position.
4) He hasn't been the league MVP or even in the discussion.
5) He has a losing career record.
6) He was drafted in the 4th round, not in the 1st round and not #1 overall like Andrew Luck. Or #2 overall like the player he replaced.

Taking all things into account Cousins is not Andrew Luck nor was he ever expected to be. But he also shouldn't be paid like Andrew Luck, who has three 11-5 seasons, three playoff appearances in four seasons, a career 35-20 record, 100+ touchdown passes, and 15,000+ yards in four seasons. He should be paid, as of right now, like the mediocre quarterback he is. If Scot McCloughan offers more than that he's handicapping the team for the next five years and he knows it.

Some people are hung up on the cost of not doing business before July 15th. I'm hung up on the cost of doing business when they shouldn't. If Cousins proves he's not only as good as advertised last season but even better this season given the weapons he now has then he should be paid accordingly. If he craps the bed this year we'll all be glad neither side rushed to a deal. This is the Washington Redskins, home of the "Averaging one starting quarterback a season since 1992 club." I have no issue with waiting. Between the cap going up another $12MM next year and the $8.5MM+ in dead cap coming off the books there's plenty of money to pay Cousins if he earns it.

Deadskins wrote:Except that his franchise tag numbers this year WON'T be changing because of this deal.
I hope that this argument isn't too tangential for you, and you can understand the math involved.

SkinsJock wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote: .. Scot McCloughan isn't going to mortgage the future of the organization for a player who really hasn't proven anything that matters in terms of being a top tier quarterback.
Cousins has done some nice things but he hasn't done any of the things top quarterbacks get paid for doing.

1) He hasn't won the games he's not supposed to win, the ones against teams with winning records.
2) He hasn't won playoff games.
3) He hasn't been the best player at his position.
4) He hasn't been the league MVP or even in the discussion.
5) He has a losing career record.
6) He was drafted in the 4th round, not in the 1st round and not #1 overall like Andrew Luck. Or #2 overall like the player he replaced.

Taking all things into account Cousins is not Andrew Luck nor was he ever expected to be. But he also shouldn't be paid like Andrew Luck, who has three 11-5 seasons, three playoff appearances in four seasons, a career 35-20 record, 100+ touchdown passes, and 15,000+ yards in four seasons. He should be paid, as of right now, like the mediocre quarterback he is. If Scot McCloughan offers more than that he's handicapping the team for the next five years and he knows it.

Some people are hung up on the cost of not doing business before July 15th. I'm hung up on the cost of doing business when they shouldn't. If Cousins proves he's not only as good as advertised last season but even better this season given the weapons he now has then he should be paid accordingly. If he craps the bed this year we'll all be glad neither side rushed to a deal. This is the Washington Redskins, home of the "Averaging one starting quarterback a season since 1992 club." I have no issue with waiting. Between the cap going up another $12MM next year and the $8.5MM+ in dead cap coming off the books there's plenty of money to pay Cousins if he earns it.

AMEN

riggofan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Except that his franchise tag numbers this year WON'T be changing because of this deal.
I hope that this argument isn't too tangential for you, and you can understand the math involved.

Ah, there's a good man. Knew I could count on DS to continue arguing whether he has a point to make or not.

Yes I understand it doesn't change his franchise tag # this year. Does it affect the tag # for next year? Yes. Does that not affect the market for Kirk Cousins? Of course it does, so quit arguing nonsense.

You've made plenty of other reasonable points, but you're just wrong about this. The Luck contract has changed the QB market just like the Osweiler contract did. Its just what happens when new numbers are thrown into the equation. #math

Deadskins wrote:Please! You were completely arguing that it raised his tag number this year.

riggofan wrote: ... Because I'm not a freaking idiot, and I wouldn't argue something that I know isn't true.

riggofan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Please! You were completely arguing that it raised his tag number this year.

No sorry I wasn't. Because I'm not a freaking idiot, and I wouldn't argue something that I know isn't true.

Thanks for playing though!

riggofan wrote:Kirk Cousins is a franchise tagged QB. Luck's deal just altered the franchise tag amount for QBs.

Deadskins wrote:It may not be what you meant, but that's how it reads.

riggofan wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:Make of this what you will.

I've already made of it, and I agree with Schefter. Our pussy footing around on Cousins is going to bite us in the arse.

People within the organization – both officials and players – have wondered, however, if the “prove-it” situation will weigh more heavily on Cousins than he currently thinks, and if it will cause him to try to do too much, and in turn, struggle. Cousins’s ability to play within the system, take what the defense gave to him and keep the ball moving ranked among his strengths last season. Coaches want a more aggressive Cousins, but some people wonder if the contract situation will cause him to feel a need to make more big plays, which could lead to him forcing things, and turning the ball over more.

riggofan wrote:Interesting thought on WashPost insider today:

People within the organization – both officials and players – have wondered, however, if the “prove-it” situation will weigh more heavily on Cousins than he currently thinks, and if it will cause him to try to do too much, and in turn, struggle. Cousins’s ability to play within the system, take what the defense gave to him and keep the ball moving ranked among his strengths last season. Coaches want a more aggressive Cousins, but some people wonder if the contract situation will cause him to feel a need to make more big plays, which could lead to him forcing things, and turning the ball over more.

That would certainly suck.

Kirk Cousins is playing the 2016 season on a $19.953 million non-exclusive franchise tag unless a long-term deal is reached prior to the July 15 deadline for franchise players to sign multi-year contracts, which seems unlikely. The 2012 fourth-round pick has more to gain than lose by playing under the franchise tag. Given there are more NFL teams than competent starting quarterbacks, Cousins could still be line for a contract similar to Sam Bradford's even with a slight regression or mediocre 2016 season.

Bradford remained with the Philadelphia Eagles on a two-year deal averaging $17.5 million per year, which has $22 million fully guaranteed. The Redskins could be forced to franchise Cousins again next year for $23,943,600 if he demonstrates he is an ascending player in 2016. This would put Cousins in position to command a long-term deal averaging a minimum of $24 million per year where he's in the same ballpark as Luck in other key contract metrics.

DarthMonk wrote:

riggofan wrote:Interesting thought on WashPost insider today:

People within the organization – both officials and players – have wondered, however, if the “prove-it” situation will weigh more heavily on Cousins than he currently thinks, and if it will cause him to try to do too much, and in turn, struggle. Cousins’s ability to play within the system, take what the defense gave to him and keep the ball moving ranked among his strengths last season. Coaches want a more aggressive Cousins, but some people wonder if the contract situation will cause him to feel a need to make more big plays, which could lead to him forcing things, and turning the ball over more.

That would certainly suck.

Certainly a possibility though last year was a bit of a prove it year as well. Thx.