The Smart thing to do with Cousins

[SkinsJock]

we missed the playoffs with the Best Redskin In Decades playing QB

we also had a really good chance at going back to back playoffs after being one of the worst 3 franchises in 2014

Scot's job is safer than many - Scot will have this franchise in the playoffs as long as the players and coaches just do their jobs

Cousins is a top priority but it's also important to not give away everything for a QB that has not shown that he's a future great

be great to sign Cousins but we don't have to because Scot will make sure the franchise remains competitive with or without him

[Deadskins]

If we had drafted Dak Prescott or another QB last year, we would not be in this predicament

Nate Sudfeld?

[Deadskins]

IMHO, without Cousins we lose to MIN, GB, NYG1, PHI2 and CIN. Stopping there that puts us at 4-12.

I'm curious to know why you are so sure Colt McCoy couldn't have won any of those games (CIN wasn't a win, btw), or any of those in which Kirk played poorly. I'm not advocating for Colt over Kirk, but you can't just say we lose the games where Kirk played well, and still would have lost the games where better QB play would have carried the day.

[Bishop Hammer]

The smart thing to do is sign Cousins to a long term deal. When he gets better we will be thinking "thank heavens we got him for 24 million because if we waited longer he would cost even more because he is that big a stud QB."

I'm just saying he will only get better the longer he stays in this system and works with Gruden. If a field general played at the unrealistic level Kirk haters want he would cost more than what Big Cuz is asking for.

[SkinsJock]

The smart thing to do is sign Cousins to a long term deal. When he gets better we will be thinking "thank heavens we got him for 24 million because if we waited longer he would cost even more because he is that big a stud QB."

I'm just saying he will only get better the longer he stays in this system and works with Gruden. If a field general played at the unrealistic level Kirk haters want he would cost more than what Big Cuz is asking for.

IF the FO agrees with you there is no doubt that they will pay him an astronomical amount to be here

pretty sure he will get a real good offer and take it - he's not getting a stupid deal from this FO - they know he's not that good

[markshark84]

Again, numbers mean nothing in this league.

When it comes to contracts #s do mean something..... Positive numbers also have tendencies to mean something. QBs with high INT and low TD rates combined with low passing yards/comp. %/etc. tend to not be as productive.

So do they mean NOTHING --- I am not sure anyone would agree. Do they mean less than some put emphasis on --- YES --- WHICH IS WHY I VALUE QBR SO MUCH.

Let me dismantle your QBR argument right now:
Four of the top 10 QBs on that list did not go to the playoffs: WSH, NO, IND and BUF
Guess what? Six of the top 10 QBs on the regular NFL rating system missed the postseason: NO, WSH, SD, BAL, IND and ARI.
That's a huge difference, right? RIGHT?!
Not really. So let's drop all this quantitative analysis nonsense and focus on what we saw with our own eyes during this season

So you are "dismantling" QBR --- which is a statistic that calculates a QB's contribution to a win by referencing overall team play????? This is a QB stat that LITERALLY show how much they contributed to wins. I thought that was the point you were trying to make. And what I see and overall QBR come very close. I make a game of watching games and then determining QBR based on how well I thought the QB played (absent stats) and then seeing what the ESPNQBR numbers are on Monday. They are commonly very close.

Do I have to spell it out for you???? Eli Manning was 27th in QBR --- which means his play contributed LESS to their being a playoff team. Rogers was 3rd --- which means his play contributed MORE to GB being a playoff team. WTF does that have to do with your point above? To put it kindly, I think you are looking at this a little light on the analysis.

AND YOU OBVIOUSLY DID NOT READ THE ARTICLE I REFERENCED. If you looked into this stuff, I think you would actually appreciate the QBR stat.

And honestly, 6 out of the top 10 shows pretty well how important the QB position is. That is literally half of the teams currently in the playoffs. As far as the "regular NFL rating system" --- which I am not sure what that is and don't really look at ANY other QB stat other than QBR as it pertains to overall contribution to a win or performance of an offensive unit --- I never referenced that so I am not sure why you are bringing it up other than to try to make an irrelevant argument/counter-reference or put words in my mouth. And are you saying that of the remaining 6 teams -- OAK, KC, SEA, HOU, MIA, NYG --- they didn't get good QB play that didn't help them get in the playoffs???? Carr is an MVP candidate. Wilson is Wilson. The others I see points to however they all have top 10 DEFs. Do you think 2 20-something picks will propel us to a top 10 DEF?????? Come on. We have two routes --- and for 8 of the 12 NFL playoff teams it was above avg QB play and a mediocre or better DEF. For 2 of the 12 it was a SUPER EASY schedule and top 10 DEF. The remaining two (KC and NYG) --- it was a top 10 DEF and solid OFF. The smart $$$ is riding a QB like all SUCCESFUL playoff teams do. We already have an above avg QB, all we need is a mediocre DEF. You always take the path of least resistance right? And that path is to keep our above avg QB and use our draft picks, get an upgraded DC, and left over cap room to make a mediocre DEF. That is WAY WAY WAY easier than taking a bottom 5 DEF and turning it into a top 5-10 using a foundation of a couple 20-something draft picks... And those 2 draft picks WOULDN'T COME CLOSE TO THE PRICE IT WOULD TAKE DRAFT A TOP QB OUT OF THE DRAFT. A QB that most likely wouldn't be as good as Cousins...

KC is a good QB that has market value and we are a team that has big talent gaps.
We should use that to our advantage and get something out of the situation to improve our team.

Otherwise, we are looking at fringe playoff performances and uneven seasons. One and done at the best (remember GB?).

Again, I am not sure what point you are trying to make other than "NFL stats don't mean anything" --- to which the only correct answer is that some do as long as you understand how to analyze them and many just plain don't. We have a top 10 QB in the NFL (some would argue top 5). QBs are centerpieces to franchise rebuilding. So now you want to throw that away to get 2 mid grade draft picks with a 56% of being successful --- in exchange for a franchise QB????? Yes, again, that is idiotic.

[markshark84]

IMHO, without Cousins we lose to MIN, GB, NYG1, PHI2 and CIN. Stopping there that puts us at 4-12.

I'm curious to know why you are so sure Colt McCoy couldn't have won any of those games (CIN wasn't a win, btw), or any of those in which Kirk played poorly. I'm not advocating for Colt over Kirk, but you can't just say we lose the games where Kirk played well, and still would have lost the games where better QB play would have carried the day.

I think that is the $1M question and one that no one can truly answer with 100% certainty. You can go back to stats and McCoy's past performances and look to other metrics --- but at the end of the day it's a judgment call. I consider Cousins to be significantly better than McCoy. I also consider Cousins to be the greatest contributor to the team in terms of overall wins this year.

I know you aren't advocating for Colt, but this is a total opinion. It was my opinion that without above avg QB play, we would have lost those games. It is also my opinion that due to our running game, without a top quality QB like Cousins our overall offense would have been HIGHLY affected by our poor running game (in other words, we wouldn't have been a top 5 OFF). I also think that Colt would have been sacked upwards of 40+ times this year under the same OL.

It is my opinion that we would have LOST those games (and if you look at the language I use, I used the term "lose" --- we didn't lose the CIN game) without Cousins or above average QB play. Nothing Colt has done in his career makes me believe we would have gotten consistently above average QB play --- so there is a >50% likelihood he plays mediocre to below average in those games and we lose.

[SkinsJock]

... We have a top 10 QB in the NFL (some would argue top 5). QBs are centerpieces to franchise rebuilding. So now you want to throw that away to get 2 mid grade draft picks with a 56% of being successful --- in exchange for a franchise QB? Yes, again, that is idiotic.

I want Cousins to be playing QB here in 2017 - This FO has a much better feel than we all do for what Kirk Cousins can do for the franchise - the price to keep him will be high because he's shown he can play QB, but, they will not put the franchise in a financial bind

hopefully, Cousins is here next season - if not, we'll just have to find someone else

[markshark84]

And are you saying that of the remaining 6 teams -- OAK, KC, SEA, HOU, MIA, NYG --- they didn't get good QB play that didn't help them get in the playoffs???? Carr is an MVP candidate. Wilson is Wilson. The others I see points to however they all have top 10 DEFs. Do you think 2 20-something picks will propel us to a top 10 DEF?????? Come on. We have two routes --- and for 8 of the 12 NFL playoff teams it was above avg QB play and a mediocre or better DEF. For 2 of the 12 it was a SUPER EASY schedule and top 10 DEF. The remaining two (KC and NYG) --- it was a top 10 DEF and solid OFF. The smart $$$ is riding a QB like all SUCCESFUL playoff teams do. We already have an above avg QB, all we need is a mediocre DEF. You always take the path of least resistance right? And that path is to keep our above avg QB and use our draft picks, get an upgraded DC, and left over cap room to make a mediocre DEF. That is WAY WAY WAY easier than taking a bottom 5 DEF and turning it into a top 5-10 using a foundation of a couple 20-something draft picks... And those 2 draft picks WOULDN'T COME CLOSE TO THE PRICE IT WOULD TAKE DRAFT A TOP QB OUT OF THE DRAFT. A QB that most likely wouldn't be as good as Cousins...

And as another point here:

Of the teams that won this weekend: SEA, GB, HOU, and PIT --- all had BETTER QBs. And the winning QBs had SIGNIFCANTLY better in game QBRs. The teams with Byes --- ATL, NE, DAL, and KC: their QBs finished 1, 2, 3, and 11 in QBR, respectively.

Of the remaining playoff teams, their QBs have QBRs of 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 15, and 22. The 22 is HOU and they are not really a contender --- 100% due to their QB situation. The other two teams with QBs outside (barely, both by less than 3 points on a 100 point scale) the top 10 --- SEA and KC --- have TOP 3 DEFs.

So to reiterate my point: You either have to have a top 10 QBR QB with at LEAST a mediocre DEF (we have a top 10 QB) or a top 3 DEF with at LEAST an above average QBR QB. If we traded Cousins or let him walk, we'd have neither an above avg QB nor a top 3 DEF. Our DEF is currently bottom 5. Where would this "above avg QBR QB" come from? How would we get to a top 3 DEF with those 2 20-something draft picks????? Why wouldn't we rebuild by keeping our top 5 QBR QB and build a mediocre DEF??? I just don't understand your logic here.

[El Mexican]

....

Mark, we can measurebate all we want. Numbers will confess to anything once you force them to.

I did read the QBR article and methodology. It's a neat system made for people who love quantitative analysis,

but gives us no assurance of KC actually having the fortitude to carry this team on his own shoulders. None.

We can only assess the future with what we have seen of KC in the past. He's a good QB IF all the variables fall into place.

Unfortunately, this team has a lot of deficiencies. Those variables surpass and affect QB play (terrible D, substandard running game, spotty coaching).

We should use our best chip (KC) to try and build a better foundation for a competent team.

Right now we've got a competent QB, but are far away from having a playoff-bound team.

Some would say we are still in rebuilding status. I agree.

[Deadskins]

Right now we've got a competent QB, but are far away from having a playoff-bound team.

The last two seasons would beg to differ.

[SkinsJock]

While Cousins had a great year statistically there were a number of times when he hurt himself as far as the $ for this next contract are concerned and especially in the last 2 home games - I think we'll see this FO re-sign Cousins for a really good deal for him but not as bad as it might have been if he'd looked better and not just had great stats

[El Mexican]

Right now we've got a competent QB, but are far away from having a playoff-bound team.

The last two seasons would beg to differ.

You mean our one-and-done of 2015 and our absence in 2016?

I hold my sports teams to higher standards.

[Deadskins]

Right now we've got a competent QB, but are far away from having a playoff-bound team.

The last two seasons would beg to differ.

You mean our one-and-done of 2015 and our absence in 2016?

I hold my sports teams to higher standards.

Then say so. I don't see how you can say we "are far away from having a playoff-bound team," when we made the playoffs last year, and were 1/2 game away this year.

[El Mexican]

Not consistently playoff-bound. The postseason seems like a magnificent achievement

when it is the absolute minimum we should be demanding. We need better foundations.

[Deadskins]

Not consistently playoff-bound. The postseason seems like a magnificent achievement

when it is the absolute minimum we should be demanding. We need better foundations.

Yes, but it was the "far away" that I was objecting to.

[DarthMonk]

Not consistently playoff-bound. The postseason seems like a magnificent achievement

when it is the absolute minimum we should be demanding. We need better foundations.

Yes, but it was the "far away" that I was objecting to.

Same here. We might simply be a nose tackle or new DC away.

[El Mexican]

I hope we are. I see too much inconsistency with this team.

But hey, I'm a patient man.

[StorminMormon86]

I don't see how you can say we "are far away from having a playoff-bound team," when we made the playoffs last year, and were 1/2 game away this year.

Even if we beat the Bengals, our record still would've been 9-7, and Detroit still would've made the playoffs over us, right?

[Deadskins]

I don't see how you can say we "are far away from having a playoff-bound team," when we made the playoffs last year, and were 1/2 game away this year.

Even if we beat the Bengals, our record still would've been 9-7, and Detroit still would've made the playoffs over us, right?

True, because the Packers won that division. My statement above should be "a game away this year." Still, the point I was making is valid: We are not "far away" from having a playoff-bound team.

[SkinsJock]

This sounds like a win win ...

http://www.hogshaven.com/2017/1/10/1422 ... 00-man-nfl

there's so much worry about the amount of money but it's all in the details ...

Cousins can get the money he wants and the FO can make sure that we're not in a financial bind ...

This is a 6-year, $150m contract

Average per year = $25m

Guaranteed money = $56m

The reality is that this contract structure gives the Redskins control over Cousins until 2022, but the team could cut Cousins after 3 years with only a $6m dead cap hit.

If the Redskins did cut Cousins after three seasons (’17, ’18, ’19) they would have actually paid him $67m (average of $22.3m per year). If you tossed in the ’16 season, the 4-year average from ’16 to ’19 would be about $21.75m.

As I mentioned before, I’m sure that the actual contract with Cousins will vary significantly from what I’ve outlined.

NOTE: What I’m trying to point out is that — while nearly everyone wants to talk about whether Cousins is worth $XX per year — it’s never as simple as looking at the APY. Contract structure — including number of years, guaranteed money and dead cap hit — are among the details that make a contract "good" or "team friendly".

You could describe the above contract the way Twitter will: as 6 years, $150m

or

You could think of it as a 3-year, $67m contract (with 3 options years at a cost of $6m).

To me, the latter description is more accurate.

I am not expecting Scot and Kirk to announce a deal this week, because its the details of the contract that make all the difference, and they take time to negotiate. It’s not just "paying the man"… it’s when you pay him, how you pay him, and the trade-off between control and risk.

It’s the structure that counts.

[markshark84]

This sounds like a win win ...

http://www.hogshaven.com/2017/1/10/1422 ... 00-man-nfl

there's so much worry about the amount of money but it's all in the details ...

Cousins can get the money he wants and the FO can make sure that we're not in a financial bind ...

This is a 6-year, $150m contract

Average per year = $25m

Guaranteed money = $56m

The reality is that this contract structure gives the Redskins control over Cousins until 2022, but the team could cut Cousins after 3 years with only a $6m dead cap hit.

If the Redskins did cut Cousins after three seasons (’17, ’18, ’19) they would have actually paid him $67m (average of $22.3m per year). If you tossed in the ’16 season, the 4-year average from ’16 to ’19 would be about $21.75m.

As I mentioned before, I’m sure that the actual contract with Cousins will vary significantly from what I’ve outlined.

NOTE: What I’m trying to point out is that — while nearly everyone wants to talk about whether Cousins is worth $XX per year — it’s never as simple as looking at the APY. Contract structure — including number of years, guaranteed money and dead cap hit — are among the details that make a contract "good" or "team friendly".

You could describe the above contract the way Twitter will: as 6 years, $150m

or

You could think of it as a 3-year, $67m contract (with 3 options years at a cost of $6m).

To me, the latter description is more accurate.

I am not expecting Scot and Kirk to announce a deal this week, because its the details of the contract that make all the difference, and they take time to negotiate. It’s not just "paying the man"… it’s when you pay him, how you pay him, and the trade-off between control and risk.

It’s the structure that counts.

From the players I know/knew ---- all they care about is the GUARENTEED portion of their contract. Nothing else. The Cousins deal comes down to how much cash is guaranteed and when he gets it. I personally think $55M would get it done. That would essentially force it to be a 3 year guaranteed deal.

The smart QBs with leverage tend to agree to contracts that are for <5 years with a high guaranteed portion. I don't see Cousins signing a >5 yr deal as that is wildly disadvantageous. I have thrown out a ton of numbers in the past and they always change as the market and conditions change --- but right now, I think it will be something like:
5 year, 100ishM deal with 50ishM guaranteed:
- 21M sign, plus 7M Y1 roster bonus
- 2M Y1, 11M Y2, 12M Y3 guaranteed (cap hits of 13MY1, 15MY2, 17MY3),
- then Y4 & Y5 20M & 24M, respectively (cap hit of 24Y4, 28Y5 with dead cap of 8.5MY4, 4.25Y5) and unguaranteed workout bonuses of 2M/Y4 & Y5

That way Cousins is getting 30M in Y1, which is competitive. Then he'll have "relatively" low cap hits in yrs 1-3. And with the annual increases to the cap, they could actually run that out all 5 years if they want or restructure after year 3 or 4 as the dead cap hit isn't enormous. It's basically a 3 year, 53M deal with a 5 year average salary of 20M/yr. In looking at the current QB contracts, I'm not sure how that doesn't get it done. The only guys with better contracts would be Luck, Rodgers, Newton, Wilson, Manning and Rivers. It's a cap friendly deal with an out after 3 years and is competitive league-wide. If Cousins wants the 60M guaranteed number, bump the Y1 roster bonus up to 10M Y1 and add a 2M to Y2 salary and 1M to Y3 and add another 1M to the sign. I'd also lower the Y4 and Y5 salaries as a consequence. That gets it to 3 yr, 60M --- but anything more than that and I'm reconsidering the deal altogether.

And I like my deal much better than hogsheaven. Lower cap hits with just as much guaranteed money and more up front $$$ for Cousins (which is a selling point for players). And no way in hell Cousins is taking a 12M signing bonus.... Time-value of money is no joke.

[SkinsJock]

No matter how much money they pay Cousins (I hope he's the highest paid QB in the NFL) - It's not going to mean that he's a better QB than all the QBs getting less - he's not going to be worth whatever they pay him, however, he's a good QB and we need one

I have faith that the FO will put it together so that everyone is happy

[markshark84]

And are you saying that of the remaining 6 teams -- OAK, KC, SEA, HOU, MIA, NYG --- they didn't get good QB play that didn't help them get in the playoffs???? Carr is an MVP candidate. Wilson is Wilson. The others I see points to however they all have top 10 DEFs. Do you think 2 20-something picks will propel us to a top 10 DEF?????? Come on. We have two routes --- and for 8 of the 12 NFL playoff teams it was above avg QB play and a mediocre or better DEF. For 2 of the 12 it was a SUPER EASY schedule and top 10 DEF. The remaining two (KC and NYG) --- it was a top 10 DEF and solid OFF. The smart $$$ is riding a QB like all SUCCESFUL playoff teams do. We already have an above avg QB, all we need is a mediocre DEF. You always take the path of least resistance right? And that path is to keep our above avg QB and use our draft picks, get an upgraded DC, and left over cap room to make a mediocre DEF. That is WAY WAY WAY easier than taking a bottom 5 DEF and turning it into a top 5-10 using a foundation of a couple 20-something draft picks... And those 2 draft picks WOULDN'T COME CLOSE TO THE PRICE IT WOULD TAKE DRAFT A TOP QB OUT OF THE DRAFT. A QB that most likely wouldn't be as good as Cousins...

And as another point here:

Of the teams that won this weekend: SEA, GB, HOU, and PIT --- all had BETTER QBs. And the winning QBs had SIGNIFCANTLY better in game QBRs. The teams with Byes --- ATL, NE, DAL, and KC: their QBs finished 1, 2, 3, and 11 in QBR, respectively.

Of the remaining playoff teams, their QBs have QBRs of 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 15, and 22. The 22 is HOU and they are not really a contender --- 100% due to their QB situation. The other two teams with QBs outside (barely, both by less than 3 points on a 100 point scale) the top 10 --- SEA and KC --- have TOP 3 DEFs.

So to reiterate my point: You either have to have a top 10 QBR QB with at LEAST a mediocre DEF (we have a top 10 QB) or a top 3 DEF with at LEAST an above average QBR QB. If we traded Cousins or let him walk, we'd have neither an above avg QB nor a top 3 DEF. Our DEF is currently bottom 5. Where would this "above avg QBR QB" come from? How would we get to a top 3 DEF with those 2 20-something draft picks????? Why wouldn't we rebuild by keeping our top 5 QBR QB and build a mediocre DEF??? I just don't understand your logic here.

El Mexican ---- To further reiterate my point.....

Final four teams:
ATL: Matt Ryan #1 in QBR
NE: Tom Brady #2 in QBR
GB: Aaron Rogers: #4 in QBR
PIT: Ben Roethsburger: #9 in QBR

I think there is a commonality here..... And you said that with Cousins we are "one and done at best" --- well, based on the outcomes this weekend, that doesn't appear to be the case. The teams that won this weekend were those with good QB play and mediocre/above avg. DEFs ---- ATL & GB (mediocre), PIT (above avg.). NE's DEF however, is top 5 but played a team that would have been 6-10 if they played in the NFC East.

Although this hasn't been that common in the past, the better QB trumped the top DEF (ATL > SEA, NE > HOU, PIT > KC) this year. The model is there. We have the more important piece -- a top 5 QBR QB. Use FA and the draft to build our DEF. Cousins is our best and most impactful player. Dealing him for a couple players that may or may not even become starters is straight up dumb. History has proven this to be 100% correct.

[Deadskins]

Final four teams:
ATL: Matt Ryan #1 in QBR
NE: Tom Brady #2 in QBR
GB: Aaron Rogers: #4 in QBR
PIT: Ben Roethsburger: #9 in QBR

I think there is a commonality here..... And you said that with Cousins we are "one and done at best" --- well, based on the outcomes this weekend, that doesn't appear to be the case. The teams that won this weekend were those with good QB play and mediocre/above avg. DEFs ---- ATL & GB (mediocre), PIT (above avg.). NE's DEF however, is top 5 but played a team that would have been 6-10 if they played in the NFC East.

Although this hasn't been that common in the past, the better QB trumped the top DEF (ATL > SEA, NE > HOU, PIT > KC) this year. The model is there. We have the more important piece -- a top 5 QBR QB. Use FA and the draft to build our DEF. Cousins is our best and most impactful player. Dealing him for a couple players that may or may not even become starters is straight up dumb. History has proven this to be 100% correct.

All four of those guys are as clutch as they come. I'd love to know Cousins' QBR in big games. I'd bet it's nowhere near his overall score.