nycdan Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Saw this tidbit on MMQB: Quote "By the way, if the Redskins attempt to franchise Cousins, my understanding is that his camp will quickly file a grievance to block tag, based on Washington violating the spirit of the rules, which dictate that players are tagged as a mechanism for teams to buy time in getting a long-term deal done" https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/02/15/indianapolis-colts-chris-ballard-frank-reich-coach-gm-mmqb Makes sense. With McCarron just winning his grievance, it has to feel like a good play for Cousins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Said this over a week ago. With the trade - and more, the extension agreement - for a 100% healthy Alex Smith, it’s transparently obvious they’d purely be tagging him to profit by trading him, not for any credible possibility of intent to actually keep him (neither under the tag nor following any serious further extension talks). Referring to tagging Cousins as bush league would be an insult to all prior history of bush league acts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lupz27 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 34 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said: Said this over a week ago. With the trade - and more, the extension agreement - for a 100% healthy Alex Smith, it’s transparently obvious they’d purely be tagging him to profit by trading him, not for any credible possibility of intent to actually keep him (neither under the tag nor following any serious further extension talks). Referring to tagging Cousins as bush league would be an insult to all prior history of bush league acts. But nobody said booo when the Pats did this with Cassel! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 9 minutes ago, Lupz27 said: But nobody said booo when the Pats did this with Cassel! Not true. It was brought up at the time, and they had a credible excuse, with Brady still not yet recovered from tearing both his ACL & MCL. Most (correctly) doubted they were going to keep him, but it wasn’t 100% unimaginable like this is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lupz27 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 6 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said: Not true. It was brought up at the time, and they had a credible excuse, with Brady still not yet recovered from tearing both his ACL & MCL. Most (correctly) doubted they were going to keep him, but it wasn’t 100% unimaginable like this is. Fair enough, but it was still horse sh*t lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 6 minutes ago, Lupz27 said: Fair enough, but it was still horse sh*t lol This time in 2009, Brady wasn’t expected to be medically cleared until August if everything went as hoped. Plus the tag was only $14m and they had $20m in space before making any cuts of restructures. Most expected a tag & trade, but they legitimately could have kept both. Washington can't, unless they don't want to sign anyone else. They need multiple new starters, and adding Smith and Cousins together would put them millions over the cap already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsplayer21 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 How do they prove they don’t want two qbs ? Pats were about to pay Garoppolo 18 a yr as a backup. We all know what skins would be doing, but I ask how they would prove it ? Are we talking beyond a reasonable doubt here ? Ha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangerous Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 3 hours ago, Jetsplayer21 said: How do they prove they don’t want two qbs ? Pats were about to pay Garoppolo 18 a yr as a backup. We all know what skins would be doing, but I ask how they would prove it ? Are we talking beyond a reasonable doubt here ? Ha it wouldn't be reasonable for the redskins to have over 50 million of the salary cap devoted to two guys let alone the same position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsplayer21 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 11 minutes ago, rangerous said: it wouldn't be reasonable for the redskins to have over 50 million of the salary cap devoted to two guys let alone the same position. Right they would trade cousins. My point is how can the league prove it ? It’s not their right to have 2 good qbs ? Especially after we just saw how valuable a solid backup qb can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscanyTile2 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 5 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said: Said this over a week ago. With the trade - and more, the extension agreement - for a 100% healthy Alex Smith, it’s transparently obvious they’d purely be tagging him to profit by trading him, not for any credible possibility of intent to actually keep him (neither under the tag nor following any serious further extension talks). Referring to tagging Cousins as bush league would be an insult to all prior history of bush league acts. Shouldn't the team do whatever is in its own best interests though (as long as it's within the rules)? Also is it really bush league to offer the guy like $30 million for 1 season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-met57 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Who is to say that the Redskins can't keep Alex Smith and Cousins on the roster?? the rule is the rule...the spirit of the rule means jack sh*t. The AJM thing is different the Redskins healthy scratched him from games he was able to play in...which is the time he got back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flgreen Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 who decides a grievance under the CBA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chirorob Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 6 hours ago, Lupz27 said: But nobody said booo when the Pats did this with Cassel! Cassell was also a guy who had never made any money, and suddenly got 17 million. He signed it asap, as it was a massive profit for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerfish Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Half or more of these guys that get tagged are not remotely worth what they get paid. Count up the cash this guy has made on being tagged or franchised and I do not feel at all sorry for him. Spirit of the rule? Ha! If you don;t like it renegotiate in the next agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangerous Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 2 hours ago, Jetsplayer21 said: Right they would trade cousins. My point is how can the league prove it ? It’s not their right to have 2 good qbs ? Especially after we just saw how valuable a solid backup qb can be. the very fact that the redskins would allocate so much of their salary cap to one position proves the point. there is no guarantee that they would be able to find a trade partner. if i were the owner of one of the other teams, i would consider calling their bluff and let them eat the franchise tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 2 hours ago, TuscanyTile2 said: Shouldn't the team do whatever is in its own best interests though (as long as it's within the rules)? Also is it really bush league to offer the guy like $30 million for 1 season? The point is that, in this situation with Cousins, it's not within the rules. If a team tags someone it's expected that there will be good-faith efforts (on both sides) to iron out a long term deal beyond the tag year. There is no way Washington could credibly argue they'd honestly engage in good-faith extension talks with Cousins in the expected $27-32m range, right after the acquisition and extension agreement of Alex Smith at some $23m/year with $70m guaranteed. This one is obvious that the only possible reason to tag him is to profit by trading him. That's against the rules, as well it should be. Truth is I get the FT purpose, to buy a team more time to negotiate with the player after a sudden great season, after being able to gauge the market when FA contracts get inked in March. But average of the prior season's top-5 is showing to be too convenient for the teams, and a pair of 1st round picks too punitive for competitors who wish to "steal" said players (especially when there's an exclusive tag available to them for those who might actually garner a pair of 1s). Even any updates to it are on shaky ground, because these teams have all the time in the world to exclusively negotiate extensions with all their players, and their rookie contracts are capped so much lower now that they've received plenty of past benefit. Never mind even if you think the FT is ok, it certainly should be hard-limited to tagging just once no matter what built-in penalty was once deemed punitive enough to the teams. At best, even a 2nd consecutive tag year should be an outrageous 180-200% to prevent teams who profited by an outlier player at a generally lower-dollar position (Instead of extending him at some $22m, Denver could have tagged Von Miller a 3 times at an $18m average since I think the first tag was only $14m, due to playing LB, and would further only incur year-to-year injury risks). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.