Billl Posted June 9, 2020 Posted June 9, 2020 59 minutes ago, thebandit27 said: Revisionist history here. Cousins was not pissed off; he gladly signed the tag...twice. He was negotiating with Washington the entire time, but their last offer to him didn’t meet what he believed he could get on the open market. They didn’t want to pay him $30M per year so they didn’t. That’s all. Do you honestly believe that he wouldn’t have re-signed in Washington had they made him the game’s highest paid QB? Cool. You think the Redskins handled their QB situation well. You and I clearly disagree pretty much across the board when it comes to evaluating QBs and the handling of QBs.
thebandit27 Posted June 9, 2020 Posted June 9, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Billl said: Cool. You think the Redskins handled their QB situation well. You and I clearly disagree pretty much across the board when it comes to evaluating QBs and the handling of QBs. What? That’s among the worst mischaracterizations I’ve read on this board. You can’t possibly be serious right now. Edited June 9, 2020 by thebandit27
FireChans Posted June 9, 2020 Posted June 9, 2020 1 hour ago, thebandit27 said: Revisionist history here. Cousins was not pissed off; he gladly signed the tag...twice. He was negotiating with Washington the entire time, but their last offer to him didn’t meet what he believed he could get on the open market. They didn’t want to pay him $30M per year so they didn’t. That’s all. Do you honestly believe that he wouldn’t have re-signed in Washington had they made him the game’s highest paid QB? Maybe. I might have run from the Skins and taken my chances regardless lol
thebandit27 Posted June 9, 2020 Posted June 9, 2020 2 minutes ago, FireChans said: Maybe. I might have run from the Skins and taken my chances regardless lol Haha maybe he would have anyway, that’s entirely possible. I just think that the notion that Cousins was so insulted by the $43M in guarantees he was paid over the previous 2 years that he wouldn’t have taken $30M per year for the next 3-5 is patently absurd. I also think that the Redskins made a horrible decision to let him walk and then trade for Alex Smith so that they could give him a contract for $5M per year less—and that was the real mistake. Somehow that means I think that they handled the QB position well—one of these days I’ll get a handle on pretzel logic.
FireChans Posted June 9, 2020 Posted June 9, 2020 3 minutes ago, thebandit27 said: Haha maybe he would have anyway, that’s entirely possible. I just think that the notion that Cousins was so insulted by the $43M in guarantees he was paid over the previous 2 years that he wouldn’t have taken $30M per year for the next 3-5 is patently absurd. I also think that the Redskins made a horrible decision to let him walk and then trade for Alex Smith so that they could give him a contract for $5M per year less—and that was the real mistake. Somehow that means I think that they handled the QB position well—one of these days I’ll get a handle on pretzel logic. The only issue I foresaw with the Skins model was the uncertainty and animosity that grew between their camp and Kirk’s camp. Kirk was more than happy to sign the tenders, and I agree with you, they offer him the money and he more than likely accepts. But I think he grew disgruntled with the team that they wouldn’t commit long-term and the team grew disgruntled that he wouldn’t accept their terms.
Billl Posted June 9, 2020 Posted June 9, 2020 Instead they get to pay Alex Smith $71,000,000. But hey, at least they had 6 years to come to that decision. 1
thebandit27 Posted June 9, 2020 Posted June 9, 2020 27 minutes ago, Billl said: Instead they get to pay Alex Smith $71,000,000. But hey, at least they had 6 years to come to that decision. So you agree that the mistake was choosing to pay Smith instead of Cousins? Great, what was all the nonsense about then?
Penfield45 Posted June 9, 2020 Posted June 9, 2020 (edited) Nah, they were pretty mediocre not sure if it’s bc we don’t have much talent on offense or bc we have an OC with a peanut sized brain but Allen’s stats are not good at all Kyler Murray blew him away in his rookie year on a MUCH worse team Edited June 9, 2020 by Penfield45
Shaw66 Posted June 9, 2020 Posted June 9, 2020 4 hours ago, thebandit27 said: Revisionist history here. Cousins was not pissed off; he gladly signed the tag...twice. He was negotiating with Washington the entire time, but their last offer to him didn’t meet what he believed he could get on the open market. They didn’t want to pay him $30M per year so they didn’t. That’s all. Do you hoenstly believe that he wouldn’t have re-signed in Washington had they made him the game’s highest paid QB? He was pissed off that Washington wouldn't give him the contract he wanted. Yes, he gladly accepted the tag, because the money was good and he'd be the starter. Then it happened a second time. At that point, I believe Cousins was pissed because Washington showed no confidence in him. By then, I'm pretty sure he wanted to go elsewhere, because Washington had made it clear what they thought of him.
thebandit27 Posted June 9, 2020 Posted June 9, 2020 1 minute ago, Shaw66 said: He was pissed off that Washington wouldn't give him the contract he wanted. Yes, he gladly accepted the tag, because the money was good and he'd be the starter. Then it happened a second time. At that point, I believe Cousins was pissed because Washington showed no confidence in him. By then, I'm pretty sure he wanted to go elsewhere, because Washington had made it clear what they thought of him. That wasn’t what was reported at the time. The reports were that the Redskins low-balled him after the 2nd tag, and that’s when his side broke off talks.
Shaw66 Posted June 9, 2020 Posted June 9, 2020 2 hours ago, thebandit27 said: So you agree that the mistake was choosing to pay Smith instead of Cousins? Great, what was all the nonsense about then? You're just trying to score points here. What Bill said was that they've mismanaged the position, and he's correct. Paying Cousins the first time around was a better choice than tagging him. Tagging him a second time was a bad choice. Signing Smith was a mistake. Haskins doesn't look like a success. Put all that together and you've got some really bad management of the position. They would have been better off not tagging Cousins the first time and drafting QBs until they found one. That's exactly the position they are in now, and they've wasted multiple years and millions of dollars.
Shaw66 Posted June 9, 2020 Posted June 9, 2020 2 minutes ago, thebandit27 said: That wasn’t what was reported at the time. The reports were that the Redskins low-balled him after the 2nd tag, and that’s when his side broke off talks. There were plenty of reports that he was unhappy. For two consecutive years, after he had very good seasons, his team said to him, "well, we aren't so sure." You really think Cousins was anxious to sign up for more of the same?
thebandit27 Posted June 9, 2020 Posted June 9, 2020 6 minutes ago, Shaw66 said: You're just trying to score points here. What Bill said was that they've mismanaged the position, and he's correct. Paying Cousins the first time around was a better choice than tagging him. Tagging him a second time was a bad choice. Signing Smith was a mistake. Haskins doesn't look like a success. Put all that together and you've got some really bad management of the position. They would have been better off not tagging Cousins the first time and drafting QBs until they found one. That's exactly the position they are in now, and they've wasted multiple years and millions of dollars. Just now, Shaw66 said: There were plenty of reports that he was unhappy. For two consecutive years, after he had very good seasons, his team said to him, "well, we aren't so sure." You really think Cousins was anxious to sign up for more of the same? Well the discussion started by Billlllll saying that tagging a QB twice was a bad recipe because the Redskins didn’t end up retaining Cousins. My response was that the mistake wasn’t the tag, but rather them choosing not to give Cousins the market deal after tagging him twice and instead trading for Smith just to pay him a mere $5M per season less than what Cousins signed for in Minnesota. So if the discussion is whether or not the Redskins handled the position well, there’s no disagreement, which is what I said above. I honestly am not sure why this has become a topic of debate.
Shaw66 Posted June 9, 2020 Posted June 9, 2020 12 minutes ago, thebandit27 said: Well the discussion started by Billlllll saying that tagging a QB twice was a bad recipe because the Redskins didn’t end up retaining Cousins. My response was the mistake wasn’t the tag, but rather them choosing not to give Cousins the market deal after tagging him twice and instead trading for Smith just to pay him a mere $5M per season less than what Cousins signed for in Minnesota. So if the discussion is whether or not the Redskins handled the position well, there’s no disagreement, which is what I said above. I honestly am not sure why this has become a topic of debate. Fair enough. I can agree with that. Washington is the poster child for mismanagement. They've been remarkably bad for some time, and the trail of bad decisions is unparalleled in recent years. When that happens, you have to look at the top of the organization. A good owner should be able to figure out who has a plan that makes sense, and then invest in it. Much as I loved Mr. Wilson, that was his problem. He was abysmal at getting the right guy.
Recommended Posts