Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

Do you want me to start with the ABCs or the Birds and the Bees?

No please. My bad. I get ya.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Signing KC to a long term deal, and than if it doesn't pan out find a replacement and trade Cousins?
How is this a beautiful solution? Lol. Replacements are hard to find. It just took us about 33 years.
What about the other holes we have to fill? Don't they come into the discussion? If it were as easy as you say it would have been done a year ago. It just is not that simple.

I hope you get that you have Cousins still if you don't find a replacement, right?

I just wanted to make sure that everyone is following what I'm saying.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

I hope you get that you have Cousins still if you don't find a replacement, right?

I just wanted to make sure that everyone is following what I'm saying.

Obviously if we sign KC than we have KC. Yes. Not to many people do not want to sign him. We have a shit ton of holes on defense and a couple of holes on offense. So if we give KC big money and he doesn't "pan out" than we cannot just grab a replacement and trade Cousins. Your beautiful solution is just not how it works...usually.

I am hoping he signs for 20. That would be ideal. Lock him up and bolster the shit out of our defense. If it is 23 -25 than I would not be as happy but at this point I would probably still do it and hope to God we hit on every draft pick and pluck a low priced gem or two from free agency. Fingers crossed.

[warriorzpath]

... you only trade Cousins if you find a replacement. But if you don't find a replacement, he's still under contract.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

... you only trade Cousins if you find a replacement. But if you don't, he's still under contract.

Not trying to be rude but you are being slightly "Captain obvious"-ish.
Of course. I mean what is the alternative. Sign him long term. Than if he craps the bed just go with it for 7 years?
The point is that giving someone a long term deal is always a risk. You are tying up a boat load of money. Especially when your team needs a whole new defense.
However most of us are on board with locking him up. You have no brilliant solution to anything if it doesn't work out though. Lol.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Obviously if we sign KC than we have KC. Yes. Not to many people do not want to sign him. We have a shit ton of holes on defense and a couple of holes on offense. So if we give KC big money and he doesn't "pan out" than we cannot just grab a replacement and trade Cousins. Your beautiful solution is just not how it works...usually.

I am hoping he signs for 20. That would be ideal. Lock him up and bolster the shit out of our defense. If it is 23 -25 than I would not be as happy but at this point I would probably still do it and hope to God we hit on every draft pick and pluck a low priced gem or two from free agency. Fingers crossed.

At the very least, you have Cousins and a big salary cap hit. That's worst case scenario with my solution. Which is better than having nobody at QB and plenty of cap space.

[CRedskinsRule]

my problem with your beautiful solution is KC. He doesn't seem the type that would take the Skins looking for other solutions in stride, I think it would cause him to play poorly, and thus create the need for other solutions, which would cause him to play even more poorly, thus making the need for another solution even greater. You see the cycle right?

I agree you pay KC, but that's it. He's the guy at that point, you commit and focus on solving the rest of the teams issues. He knows he's the guy, he puts the contract worries behind him, he plays better, that makes the rest of the team better, which enhances your ability to bring better players to a winning team, which surrounds KC with better offensive and defensive talent, which leads to KC playing better. Now that's a beautiful solution!

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

my problem with your beautiful solution is KC. He doesn't seem the type that would take the Skins looking for other solutions in stride, I think it would cause him to play poorly, and thus create the need for other solutions, which would cause him to play even more poorly, thus making the need for another solution even greater. You see the cycle right?



I agree you pay KC, but that's it. He's the guy at that point, you commit and focus on solving the rest of the teams issues. He knows he's the guy, he puts the contract worries behind him, he plays better, that makes the rest of the team better, which enhances your ability to bring better players to a winning team, which surrounds KC with better offensive and defensive talent, which leads to KC playing better. Now that's a beautiful solution!

Right. Lock him up. We will hope it is closer to 20 than 25. Than build that D. Grab a rb and a center or a T,G if there is a good one available. Help the run game. But most importantly build the d. First round pick has got to be on defense. There can be no ignoring it any more. I would rather spend a chunk of change on a big defensive free agent than getting two "bodies" for the same money. We need three new "play makers", and a healthy and effective Cravens next year!

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

my problem with your beautiful solution is KC. He doesn't seem the type that would take the Skins looking for other solutions in stride, I think it would cause him to play poorly, and thus create the need for other solutions, which would cause him to play even more poorly, thus making the need for another solution even greater. You see the cycle right?



I agree you pay KC, but that's it. He's the guy at that point, you commit and focus on solving the rest of the teams issues. He knows he's the guy, he puts the contract worries behind him, he plays better, that makes the rest of the team better, which enhances your ability to bring better players to a winning team, which surrounds KC with better offensive and defensive talent, which leads to KC playing better. Now that's a beautiful solution!

I have a lot to say to a lot things in your post, which was good. But I think the main thing is - this is what everyone wants. But there still seems to be reluctance from the Redskins' front office to sign him long-term and he'll be that guy - even with the support. I honestly don't know either way. But I think my way of handling it is the best compromise, based on what the Redskins seem to be thinking with Cousins.

[warriorzpath]

So if they're relunctant - right or wrong- then sign him anyway with an eye towards trading him. At least you get something for him if you trade him.

[warriorzpath]

So if you're planning on letting him go anyway... don't. Don't let him go for nothing.

[warriorzpath]

... In other words, treat him like an asset.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Right. Lock him up. We will hope it is closer to 20 than 25. Than build that D. Grab a rb and a center or a T,G if there is a good one available. Help the run game. But most importantly build the d. First round pick has got to be on defense. There can be no ignoring it any more. I would rather spend a chunk of change on a big defensive free agent than getting two "bodies" for the same money. We need three new "play makers", and a healthy and effective Cravens next year!

First round pick has to be best player available. Hopefully that is someone on defense.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

First round pick has to be best player available. Hopefully that is someone on defense.

I am going to go against the court of public opinion and say it has to be bpa on defense. Honestly if their is some stud rb, wr, te, or oline guy sitting there I do not want him. Lol. Whoever the next bpa is down our board that is on defense cannot grade out so much less than the offensive guy that it is not worth it. First round. There will be plenty of good picks on both sides of the ball. I would actually say the same for rounds 1-4. That is how bad our defense is.

[SolidSnake84]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

I have a lot to say to a lot things in your post, which was good. But I think the main thing is - this is what everyone wants. But there still seems to be reluctance from the Redskins' front office to sign him long-term and he'll be that guy - even with the support. I honestly don't know either way. But I think my way of handling it is the best compromise, based on what the Redskins seem to be thinking with Cousins.

It is more than reasonable doubt in the front office. Regardless of what we've seen on the field, for whatever reason the office wants to go a different direction potentially. Cooley has hinted at it, tons of other players have said the same thing.

The irony, to me, is that the Redskins' issue is paying Cousins long-term. This would be totally different if he went to them and said "I'll do it for 15 million a season". BUT - he is going to get the average starting QB price of between 20 and 23 million. Now is where we get stupid in our typical Redskins ways. We don't want to pay him big money, so we are prepared to FRANCHISE TAG him yet again for a 2nd year, which *cough* - raises his price yet again. I do not have the exact figure, but i believe he would get around a 24 million season for 2017.

Where is our advantage in tagging him for the 2nd straight year? Is it that we hope we just have him for one more year while we find his replacement? I've had a hard time understanding where our thinking is right now especially at the QB position. Like, i get that they want to go cheap at QB, but how many places has that worked???