Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

REPORT: REDSKINS PREPARING FOR POSSIBLE DEPARTURE OF COUSINS
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Washington Redskins
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
MKnight82


Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 18298
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

21 ALL THE WAY wrote:
MKnight82 wrote:
21 ALL THE WAY wrote:
MKnight82 wrote:
21 ALL THE WAY wrote:
MKnight82 wrote:
Why anyone would want us to sign Brock Osweiler is beyond my comprehension.



Because you never look at this with Kirk not being here or getting hurt. Brock can be a legit backup if nothing else.
No, because Brock Osweiler is terrible. Colt McCoy is not very good, and even he's better than Brock Osweiler.


I wouldn't say that, but that's your opinion.
Its also the opinion of the Houston Texans, who just paid a 2nd round pick to remove Osweiler from their roster.


Did they trade for Colt McCoy to replace Osweiler? So how can you say that Houston see's Colt as the better QB?
Well to start we didn't trade the Browns a 2nd to take Colt McCoy off our roster.
_________________


Bruce Allen is a snake and should be fired.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
21 ALL THE WAY


Joined: 18 Dec 2008
Posts: 5848
Location: WASHINGTON DC
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MKnight82 wrote:
21 ALL THE WAY wrote:
MKnight82 wrote:
21 ALL THE WAY wrote:
MKnight82 wrote:
21 ALL THE WAY wrote:
MKnight82 wrote:
Why anyone would want us to sign Brock Osweiler is beyond my comprehension.



Because you never look at this with Kirk not being here or getting hurt. Brock can be a legit backup if nothing else.
No, because Brock Osweiler is terrible. Colt McCoy is not very good, and even he's better than Brock Osweiler.


I wouldn't say that, but that's your opinion.
Its also the opinion of the Houston Texans, who just paid a 2nd round pick to remove Osweiler from their roster.


Did they trade for Colt McCoy to replace Osweiler? So how can you say that Houston see's Colt as the better QB?
Well to start we didn't trade the Browns a 2nd to take Colt McCoy off our roster.


The Browns added a 2nd round pick to building their team as well. Could walk away with their Franchise QB, so its for a purpose. Redskins might pay Kirk Cousins that highest contract in NFL history to do that, so I don't think you should be judging. You think the Skins should do that for Cousins their doing it for Jimmy G or as I said don't forget the extra 2nd round pick they added.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MKnight82


Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 18298
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

21 ALL THE WAY wrote:
MKnight82 wrote:
21 ALL THE WAY wrote:
MKnight82 wrote:
21 ALL THE WAY wrote:
MKnight82 wrote:
21 ALL THE WAY wrote:
MKnight82 wrote:
Why anyone would want us to sign Brock Osweiler is beyond my comprehension.



Because you never look at this with Kirk not being here or getting hurt. Brock can be a legit backup if nothing else.
No, because Brock Osweiler is terrible. Colt McCoy is not very good, and even he's better than Brock Osweiler.


I wouldn't say that, but that's your opinion.
Its also the opinion of the Houston Texans, who just paid a 2nd round pick to remove Osweiler from their roster.


Did they trade for Colt McCoy to replace Osweiler? So how can you say that Houston see's Colt as the better QB?
Well to start we didn't trade the Browns a 2nd to take Colt McCoy off our roster.


The Browns added a 2nd round pick to building their team as well. Could walk away with their Franchise QB, so its for a purpose. Redskins might pay Kirk Cousins that highest contract in NFL history to do that, so I don't think you should be judging. You think the Skins should do that for Cousins their doing it for Jimmy G or as I said don't forget the extra 2nd round pick they added.
What? I don't understand your post at all.

The Texans thought Osweiler was so bad that they gave the Browns a 2nd round pick to take him from them.

The Browns responded by immediately putting Osweiler on the trade block, because they have no plans of ever playing a QB that terrible.
_________________


Bruce Allen is a snake and should be fired.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Doc Draper


Joined: 18 Dec 2012
Posts: 4934
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brock sucks.

What's fascinating about this is the NFL allowed Houston and Cleveland to violate long standing rules where Houston did an NBA style salary dump. It is precedent setting for the NFL and is a precursor to a lot more NFL contracts becoming guaranteed. Brock's contract was like Gilbert Agent Zero Areanas and handcuffed Houston. So they throw a 2 and Cleveland absorbs their mistake

Envision this- what if Danny had been smart enough to do this with the fat Albert contract.

Welcome to NFL moneyball combined with NBA trading contracts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
turtle28


Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 79978
Location: MD/DC/VA depends on the hr!
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 4:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Doc Draper wrote:
Brock sucks.

What's fascinating about this is the NFL allowed Houston and Cleveland to violate long standing rules where Houston did an NBA style salary dump. It is precedent setting for the NFL and is a precursor to a lot more NFL contracts becoming guaranteed. Brock's contract was like Gilbert Agent Zero Areanas and handcuffed Houston. So they throw a 2 and Cleveland absorbs their mistake

Envision this- what if Danny had been smart enough to do this with the fat Albert contract.

Welcome to NFL moneyball combined with NBA trading contracts.
Bruce Allen did do a salary dump with a lot of Cerrato mistakes in 2011 during the lockout and we were made to pay the money anyways. We tried but the NFL didn't let us get away with it.
_________________
RIP SSFmike23md

"God made certain people to play football... Sean was one" JG
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
turtle28


Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 79978
Location: MD/DC/VA depends on the hr!
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 4:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

59%, 2,957 yards, 15 TDs , 16 ints, 72.2 rtg (1 year in system)

62%, 1,967 yards, 10 TDs, 6 ints, 86.4 rtg (8 starts, 4 years in system)

I'm with David Carr. Give Brock more time in a system and he'll look like the qb from Denver, not the one from Houston.
_________________
RIP SSFmike23md

"God made certain people to play football... Sean was one" JG
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Woz


Moderator
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 26565
Location: in a land where the furniture folds to a much smaller size
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Doc Draper wrote:
Brock sucks.

What's fascinating about this is the NFL allowed Houston and Cleveland to violate long standing rules where Houston did an NBA style salary dump. It is precedent setting for the NFL and is a precursor to a lot more NFL contracts becoming guaranteed. Brock's contract was like Gilbert Agent Zero Areanas and handcuffed Houston. So they throw a 2 and Cleveland absorbs their mistake


How was the trade a violation of any rule?

Now, guaranteed contracts? That's more interesting. I would be curious what the Redskins would do if Cousins' team offered a 4y/$80M contract that was fully guaranteed.

Quote:
Envision this- what if Danny had been smart enough to do this with the fat Albert contract.


There was no team who could absorb that contract like the Browns could. Remember, this only happened because the salary cap has jetted up from $140M to $167M in just three years.

Quote:
Welcome to NFL moneyball combined with NBA trading contracts.


We'll see if this is a one-off or a new trend. I am dubious of it being something new.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Doc Draper


Joined: 18 Dec 2012
Posts: 4934
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Woz wrote:
Doc Draper wrote:
Brock sucks.

What's fascinating about this is the NFL allowed Houston and Cleveland to violate long standing rules where Houston did an NBA style salary dump. It is precedent setting for the NFL and is a precursor to a lot more NFL contracts becoming guaranteed. Brock's contract was like Gilbert Agent Zero Areanas and handcuffed Houston. So they throw a 2 and Cleveland absorbs their mistake


How was the trade a violation of any rule?

Now, guaranteed contracts? That's more interesting. I would be curious what the Redskins would do if Cousins' team offered a 4y/$80M contract that was fully guaranteed.

Quote:
Envision this- what if Danny had been smart enough to do this with the fat Albert contract.


There was no team who could absorb that contract like the Browns could. Remember, this only happened because the salary cap has jetted up from $140M to $167M in just three years.

Quote:
Welcome to NFL moneyball combined with NBA trading contracts.


We'll see if this is a one-off or a new trend. I am dubious of it being something new.


This trade was a team paying for a second round pick in the upcoming draft. Cleveland had the cap space, houston needed to move a large contract, cleveland gave them nothing but got a second round pick and a quarterback? Not sure on this, but I believe the NFL has a rule that you cant pay for a draft pick more than like 3m in a a year as part of a larger deal ( in the CBA) to preserve competitive balance. This is a trade for a number 2 pick in order to have someone else pay a contract for a guy they will cut. I believe the NFL was trying to avoid the nba philly tanking strategies. This trade seems to be a clear violation of the CBA unless I am haing a senior moment and mis-remembering. Of course, one should expect the sports media that are getting paid for wriiting about sports to think of this and check into it, but those guys aren't really reporters like they were back in the day their social media geeks counting their click bait.

To the point about moneyball in the nfl I think it can be useful. The arguement that football is a team game does have some merit, but there are clearly certain positions that are more valuable and should have money put there. And the biggest quantatative statistic is related to the draft- first round picks have a 50% chance of being a starter for 4 years or more, and second round picks are down to 25-30% or so- according to my bookie lol lol ( Small guy, big huge glasses and calculates everything in his head while drinking coffee all day long). so cleveland tanked, had a huge amount of cao space, sold that CASH for a second round pick and will try to sucker somebody else to give them a 7th for Brock which nobody will. Thats a very expensive pick, but it could be traded for a 1 in 18 which then seems to become worth the money?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
turtle28


Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 79978
Location: MD/DC/VA depends on the hr!
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Woz wrote:
Doc Draper wrote:
Brock sucks.

What's fascinating about this is the NFL allowed Houston and Cleveland to violate long standing rules where Houston did an NBA style salary dump. It is precedent setting for the NFL and is a precursor to a lot more NFL contracts becoming guaranteed. Brock's contract was like Gilbert Agent Zero Areanas and handcuffed Houston. So they throw a 2 and Cleveland absorbs their mistake


How was the trade a violation of any rule?

Now, guaranteed contracts? That's more interesting. I would be curious what the Redskins would do if Cousins' team offered a 4y/$80M contract that was fully guaranteed.

Quote:
Envision this- what if Danny had been smart enough to do this with the fat Albert contract.


There was no team who could absorb that contract like the Browns could. Remember, this only happened because the salary cap has jetted up from $140M to $167M in just three years.

Quote:
Welcome to NFL moneyball combined with NBA trading contracts.


We'll see if this is a one-off or a new trend. I am dubious of it being something new.
I think the 49ers could have absorbed Brock's contract but they had already signed a better starter in Hoyer and signing a back up in Barkley.

Is this actually illegal? I've heard ppl in here talk about that but I don't think it is. Just because it's never been done before doesn't make it illegal.
_________________
RIP SSFmike23md

"God made certain people to play football... Sean was one" JG
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Woz


Moderator
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 26565
Location: in a land where the furniture folds to a much smaller size
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Doc Draper wrote:
Woz wrote:
Doc Draper wrote:
Brock sucks.

What's fascinating about this is the NFL allowed Houston and Cleveland to violate long standing rules where Houston did an NBA style salary dump. It is precedent setting for the NFL and is a precursor to a lot more NFL contracts becoming guaranteed. Brock's contract was like Gilbert Agent Zero Areanas and handcuffed Houston. So they throw a 2 and Cleveland absorbs their mistake


How was the trade a violation of any rule?

Now, guaranteed contracts? That's more interesting. I would be curious what the Redskins would do if Cousins' team offered a 4y/$80M contract that was fully guaranteed.

Quote:
Envision this- what if Danny had been smart enough to do this with the fat Albert contract.


There was no team who could absorb that contract like the Browns could. Remember, this only happened because the salary cap has jetted up from $140M to $167M in just three years.

Quote:
Welcome to NFL moneyball combined with NBA trading contracts.


We'll see if this is a one-off or a new trend. I am dubious of it being something new.


This trade was a team paying for a second round pick in the upcoming draft. Cleveland had the cap space, houston needed to move a large contract, cleveland gave them nothing but got a second round pick and a quarterback? Not sure on this, but I believe the NFL has a rule that you cant pay for a draft pick more than like 3m in a a year as part of a larger deal ( in the CBA) to preserve competitive balance.


I would be curious to see what clause you are referring to as I do not recall there being anything like that in it. I know the $3M in a year figure is wrong (see: Jared Goff's contract and note his salary in 2019).

Are you thinking of the contract slotting?

Quote:
This is a trade for a number 2 pick in order to have someone else pay a contract for a guy they will cut.


Well, maybe.

First off, the full trade was Osweiler, 2017 6th, and 2018 2nd for 2017 4th (compensatory round).

Second, note that the Browns haven't cut him yet. They've apparently been looking if anyone else will trade for him, but they might just keep him "just in case."

Quote:
I believe the NFL was trying to avoid the nba philly tanking strategies.


Except this isn't a tanking strategy. I could argue that as bad as Osweiler is, he may be an improvement in the QB play for Cleveland.

Quote:
This trade seems to be a clear violation of the CBA unless I am haing a senior moment and mis-remembering.


Again, without knowing what article or clause you are thinking of, I cannot say. However, from where I sit, it seems to me to be perfectly valid. Only reason that this is the first time we've seen it in the NFL is A) that most teams don't dump a player after his first year because they cannot get out of the guaranteed portions, and B) that a team was willing to part with a draft pick to clean up a mess.

Quote:
f course, one should expect the sports media that are getting paid for wriiting about sports to think of this and check into it, but those guys aren't really reporters like they were back in the day their social media geeks counting their click bait.


Except there's a bunch of geeks like us who would have evaluated it. Also, the NFL's compliance office could have blocked the deal if it were in violation.

Quote:
To the point about moneyball in the nfl I think it can be useful. The arguement that football is a team game does have some merit, but there are clearly certain positions that are more valuable and should have money put there. And the biggest quantatative statistic is related to the draft- first round picks have a 50% chance of being a starter for 4 years or more, and second round picks are down to 25-30% or so- according to my bookie lol lol ( Small guy, big huge glasses and calculates everything in his head while drinking coffee all day long). so cleveland tanked, had a huge amount of cao space, sold that CASH for a second round pick and will try to sucker somebody else to give them a 7th for Brock which nobody will. Thats a very expensive pick, but it could be traded for a 1 in 18 which then seems to become worth the money?


1. I think it's hard to argue that the Browns tanked when they went through six separate quarterbacks due to injury last season, including Terrelle Pryor. That's not really tanking, but having incredibly awful luck. Hence my "just in case" statement above.

2. They were competitive in a lot of those games, and pushing the ball downfield in attempts to win. It's part of the reason Pryor was considered one of the best WRs on the free agent market this season.

3. The major payoff for the deal is still over a year away.

4. When a team is as bad as the Browns (or Redskins) are and when they have as much dysfunction as the Browns (or Redskins) have, free agents don't generally want to come here and top talent tends to feel at the earliest possibility. As such, they don't have a lot of big contracts tying up their cap space. In fact, they perhaps have TOO MUCH cap space due the salary floor, so eating a horrible contract like Osweiler's actually helps them out. That IS in the CBA.

All in all, I think it was a good, smart deal for the Browns to take advantage of a team who was somewhat desperate to get out from under the albatross of the Osweiler contract.

Furthermore, if Kirk is not going to re-sign here (as I've said, I've made my peace with this), I think trading him to Houston is a solid compromise:
Kirk's perspective:
- Gets a team that wants him (assuming we offered up the option)
- Has a fair amount of talent (especially on the defense), so he doesn't have to carry the team on his shoulders
- A relatively easy path to the playoffs (and consequently bonuses and next big contracts)
- A state with no income tax

Redskins' perspective:
- He's in the AFC.
- (one for Snyder) You can give a big F-U to Kyle Shanahan.
- They get something back for him that might resemble decent value.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Doc Draper


Joined: 18 Dec 2012
Posts: 4934
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 5:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is an interesting piece on this that cites NFL rules against trading cash for picks but also says the trade is legal because it's not cash rather salary cap space

So you can't trade cash for a draft pick but you can trade salary cap space for draft picks. I can see the logic. It's like monopoly you all have the same amount of money. If you could trade cash for picks it's basically like you are the banker giving your self an advantage.

But my other issue was that it could lead to NBA style tanking which seems to be perfectly legal.

Consider this: you are the 3rd worst team in modern NFL history ( see second link below). You are sick of it. Start acquiring the most high draft picks in NFL history. Check that is done. While you are picking 1 in 17 there aren't any can't miss QB prospects but you realize there are 2 cant miss prospects who may become HOF quarterbacks that will be in 18 draft. So tank again in 17 by trading a large percentage of Cap space for a draft picks
I can't wait to see if Cleveland using their money ball approach as successfully as the Red Sox have

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/233071/after-brock-osweiler-deal-heres-everything-you-need-to-know-about-nfl-trade-policies


http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/gallery/the-16-worst-teams-in-modern-nfl-history-ranked-111416
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Woz


Moderator
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 26565
Location: in a land where the furniture folds to a much smaller size
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Doc Draper wrote:
Here is an interesting piece on this that cites NFL rules against trading cash for picks but also says the trade is legal because it's not cash rather salary cap space

So you can't trade cash for a draft pick but you can trade salary cap space for draft picks. I can see the logic. It's like monopoly you all have the same amount of money. If you could trade cash for picks it's basically like you are the banker giving your self an advantage.


Ah, yes. Now I get what you were going for. It is correct you cannot essentially "buy" a draft pick like you can in the NBA. This was put in place to prevent "rich" owners from throwing cash at "poor" owners for their draft picks and upsetting parity.

As you said, this is more bookkeeping than actual a money transfer.

Quote:
But my other issue was that it could lead to NBA style tanking which seems to be perfectly legal.

Consider this: you are the 3rd worst team in modern NFL history ( see second link below). You are sick of it. Start acquiring the most high draft picks in NFL history. Check that is done. While you are picking 1 in 17 there aren't any can't miss QB prospects but you realize there are 2 cant miss prospects who may become HOF quarterbacks that will be in 18 draft. So tank again in 17 by trading a large percentage of Cap space for a draft picks
I can't wait to see if Cleveland using their money ball approach as successfully as the Red Sox have

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/233071/after-brock-osweiler-deal-heres-everything-you-need-to-know-about-nfl-trade-policies

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/gallery/the-16-worst-teams-in-modern-nfl-history-ranked-111416


1. As I said before, the Browns are obligated to spend their cap space due to the cap floor. So, absorbing the contract was actually to the benefit.

2. The Browns other two QBs are Chris Hogan and Cody Kessler. As sad as this may sound, Brock Osweiler might have been a step up.

3. Unlike making overpaying for a guy like Mike Glennon (who would require a dysfunction tax premium to come to Cleveland) or spinning the wheel yet again on another one year contract for a washed up vet/journeyman, Osweiler's contract comes with two benefits:
A. He's under contract for three years, so in the event he actually turns it around, they just locked in a relatively cheap starting QB (cap hits of $16M, $18M, and $17M).
B. If he stinks up the joint, he can be cut next season with zero penalty.

4. I don't know who left from the Browns free agent class beyond Terrelle Pryor, but it's possible that by trading for Osweiler instead of signing a free agent, they are protecting a chance at a 2018 compensatory pick. That seems a bit dubious as they gave Kevin Zeitler a 5y/$60M/$31.5M guaranteed ($12M SB) deal, along with two "smaller" deals to Kenny Britt (4y/$32.5M/$17M guar ($6.5M SB)) and J.C. Tretter (3y/$16.75M/$10M guar ($4.5M SB)), but it's still possible.


So, are the Browns tanking? I don't think so. However a better question might be: if they were planning to tank in 2017, could you tell?

2017 - 1st overall
2016 - 2nd (traded back)
2015 - 12th
2014 - 4th (traded back)
2013 - 6th
2012 - 3rd
2011 - 6th (traded back)
2010 - 7th
2009 - 5th (traded back)
2008 - 22nd (traded away in 2007 for Brady Quinn)

Last ten drafts, the Browns have selected in the top ten eight times, and five of those in the top five.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
turtle28


Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 79978
Location: MD/DC/VA depends on the hr!
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@JPFinlayCSN
Quote:
Zero. That's the number of trade talks #Redskins have had on Kirk Cousins, per Bruce Allen http://buff.ly/2nDbhK

_________________
RIP SSFmike23md

"God made certain people to play football... Sean was one" JG
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
lavar703


Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Posts: 7079
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just like Scot was tending to his dead grandmothers funeral and would be back with the team....
_________________
Dashing is the greatest FF poster ever
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
turtle28


Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 79978
Location: MD/DC/VA depends on the hr!
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lavar703 wrote:
Just like Scot was tending to his dead grandmothers funeral and would be back with the team....
True, who knows
_________________
RIP SSFmike23md

"God made certain people to play football... Sean was one" JG
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Washington Redskins All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group