Per sources, Jets could offer Kirk Cousins fully guaranteed contract. (Merged Cousins Jets $$$ thread)

[Lupz27]

27 minutes ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

Nobody is saying that's a spectacular record... but nobody is calling him A Rodge or Brady either; this is free agency we're talking about - everyone gets overpaid. 

And every team doing the over paying regrets it, and never get their money’s worth.

[Larz]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It’ll probably be a few million more than that.

5th year options for 1st rounders get divided up in 2 ways: by position, and whether a pick was between 1-10 or between 11-32. Williams (#6 overall) was in the 1-10 range, which means his tag # will be the same as the transition tag amount (average of the top 10 highest from the prior season). They do distinguish between DEs and DTs, but not 3-4 DEs and 4-3 DEs. (Oddly enough, though, all OLmen are treated equally, which is why you’ll rarely see anyone other than a LT get tagged). 

The 2017 tags for DE went to Clowney (#1 overall) and Mack (#5), at $13.8m. So take that number and add 2 more years’ inflation, whatever that’ll be. For comparison, a year earlier Ansah’s tag was $1.1m less, at $12.7. Don’t automatically guess a linear increase, though, since it depends on the new contracts given to veterans. Look at the 2016 top-10 DE contracts and see which ones got bumped out by 2017 and those that’ll further get bumped out by 2018 FA contracts (e.g. Casey, Griffen, & Campbell at ~$15m apiece last year to bump off mere $9m-11m ends, plus whatever other DE deals are inked next month). There are a couple of $12m ones in there right now (Tuitt, Hicks) that could lose their place in the top 10. At the same time, you’ll have to remove the biggest one because we’re cutting Mo and his $17m/year contract will therefore be gone. I don’t know that there’ll be any new $17m DE contracts signed this year, so one of those $12m deals will replace Mo’s $17m in the top 10, effectively lowering Leo’s tag # by $500K ($5m divided by 10).

A safe guess is it’ll probably be around $15m, give or take, for Leo’s 5th year option.

Terry,  is that you? 

[sourceworx]

55 minutes ago, Lupz27 said:

Pot meat kettle the above is YOUR opinion don’t ******* come on here and try to lecture me about my opinion, and then push yours as fact **** off you self righteous........

Dude calm down. You're taking this b.s. way too personal. You're better than that.

[talisaynon]

add this on the ******* list of ******* idiot ******* decisions this **** team continues to do. Kirk is ok. He wont do sh*t with our current coaching staff. So this ******* piece of sh*t would set us back another ******* 5 years.

**** this cun t team

[JoJoTownsell1]

54 minutes ago, Jet9 said:

This is the Chicken Little thread. Nothing has happened yet, guys. 

It's never too early too early for Jets fans to whine. 

[Patriot Killa]

31 minutes ago, Lupz27 said:

Not one Cousins is using in negotiations, or one you will find in most places that show you players season stat, W/L record is very rarely included.

Usually because the individual trying to get the most out of a contract is more interested in what he has done rather than the entire team’s resume. He isn’t taking any of those guys(for good or worse) with him so he tries to focus on what he accomplished as a player. Nothing wrong with it. In Cousins case I don’t mind. I would do the same. Fitzpatrick was really the stat stuff though.

[T0mShane]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It’ll probably be a few million more than that.

5th year options for 1st rounders get divided up in 2 ways: by position, and whether a pick was between 1-10 or between 11-32. Williams (#6 overall) was in the 1-10 range, which means his tag # will be the same as the transition tag amount (average of the top 10 highest from the prior season). They do distinguish between DEs and DTs, but not 3-4 DEs and 4-3 DEs. (Oddly enough, though, all OLmen are treated equally, which is why you’ll rarely see anyone other than a LT get tagged). 

The 2017 tags for DE went to Clowney (#1 overall) and Mack (#5), at $13.8m. So take that number and add 2 more years’ inflation, whatever that’ll be. For comparison, a year earlier Ansah’s tag was $1.1m less, at $12.7. Don’t automatically guess a linear increase, though, since it depends on the new contracts given to veterans. Look at the 2016 top-10 DE contracts and see which ones got bumped out by 2017 and those that’ll further get bumped out by 2018 FA contracts (e.g. Casey, Griffen, & Campbell at ~$15m apiece last year to bump off mere $9m-11m ends, plus whatever other DE deals are inked next month). There are a couple of $12m ones in there right now (Tuitt, Hicks) that could lose their place in the top 10. At the same time, you’ll have to remove the biggest one because we’re cutting Mo and his $17m/year contract will therefore be gone. I don’t know that there’ll be any new $17m DE contracts signed this year, so one of those $12m deals will replace Mo’s $17m in the top 10, effectively lowering Leo’s tag # by $500K ($5m divided by 10).

A safe guess is it’ll probably be around $15m, give or take, for Leo’s 5th year option.

I’d imagine the Jets would try to pre-empt this by extending him this season, yes? 

[Patriot Killa]

32 minutes ago, talisaynon said:

add this on the ******* list of ******* idiot ******* decisions this **** team continues to do. Kirk is ok. He wont do sh*t with our current coaching staff. So this ******* piece of sh*t would set us back another ******* 5 years.

**** this cun t team

More asterisks than a Patriots super bowl chart.

[jetspenguin]

Funny how people are willing to give the house to a guy so we can be set at qb for 5 years but balk at throwing the house at a trade to the top pick so we can be set for the next 10 years.

[Jetster]

2 minutes ago, jetspenguin said:

Funny how people are willing to give the house to a guy so we can be set at qb for 5 years but balk at throwing the house at a trade to the top pick so we can be set for the next 10 years.

Proof?

[RedBeardedSavage]

8 minutes ago, jetspenguin said:

Funny how people are willing to give the house to a guy so we can be set at qb for 5 years but balk at throwing the house at a trade to the top pick so we can be set for the next 10 years.

At least with Cousins you know what you’re getting and you know what you’re sacrificing; namely a top 1/3 of the league QB and cap space respectively.  

A tradeup, while I might advocate for it if we miss out on Cousins, is far more risky - how many first are we giving up?  What if we trade up for a player that ends up more like RGIII than Wentz?  

[dbatesman]

1 hour ago, T0mShane said:

I’d imagine the Jets would try to pre-empt this by extending him this season, yes? 

Given Maccagnan’s track record, what they’ll probably do is wait until three minutes before he hits free agency and then sign him for 130% of his actual value.

[jetspenguin]

17 minutes ago, Jetster said:

Proof?

proof of what? 

[jetspenguin]

19 minutes ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

At least with Cousins you know what you’re getting and you know what you’re sacrificing; namely a top 1/3 of the league QB and cap space respectively.  

A tradeup, while I might advocate for it if we miss out on Cousins, is far more risky - how many first are we giving up?  What if we trade up for a player that ends up more like RGIII than Wentz?  

Actually we dont really know what result we are going to get with Cousins. We know what he has looked like what the redskins, their players, their coaching staff and their management. Thus far that has produced a lot of yards and not a lot of wins. 

In the last 3 years they have 24 wins, in the last 3 years we have 20. I am hoping that those who want him so bad have higher expectations than that....even with this coaching staff and roster. 

My point is that either way the risk is significant but with a rookie we have more of a long term solution. Its a better risk with the chance at a greater reward imo. 

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, T0mShane said:

I’d imagine the Jets would try to pre-empt this by extending him this season, yes? 

Well they should - if they’re going to keep him - but this current FO has yet to extend a single player until after the final game is ended (useless/camp fodder types not included, as they usually get re-upped in December). 

The team’s line/excuse used to be - if you recall - that they don’t negotiate/renegotiate with players that still have 2 years left under their existing contract because of the precedent it’d set or whatever.

Like that old woman’s cigarette ad...you’ve come a long way, baby. lol

[jgb]

43 minutes ago, jetspenguin said:

Funny how people are willing to give the house to a guy so we can be set at qb for 5 years but balk at throwing the house at a trade to the top pick so we can be set for the next 10 years.

One carries more risk. You're comparing apples to golf balls.

[jgb]

26 minutes ago, jetspenguin said:

Actually we dont really know what result we are going to get with Cousins. We know what he has looked like what the redskins, their players, their coaching staff and their management. Thus far that has produced a lot of yards and not a lot of wins. 

In the last 3 years they have 24 wins, in the last 3 years we have 20. I am hoping that those who want him so bad have higher expectations than that....even with this coaching staff and roster. 

My point is that either way the risk is significant but with a rookie we have more of a long term solution. Its a better risk with the chance at a greater reward imo. 

It's really hard to parse this to understand your point. A rookie has less risk than Cousins? I don't see how someone could argue that. Sure a rookie has the *potential* for a higher ceiling (after all maybe there is a Brady in the draft) but the risk argument is an extremely difficult (impossible?) sell.

[Sperm Edwards]

9 hours ago, BrickTamland said:

Nice breakdown. He has not earned that.

No, but it’s not like they’re going to let him go either, so they should probably extend him now.

Either that, or they should get in front of it and decide they’re not keeping him long-term, and try to trade him now while he’s still a name with a good reputation and 1 cheap year left on his rookie contract (plus the ability to tag him in 2019 if they have trouble banging out something longer).

I can go along with both, even though I think he’s probably not worth it, but the path I’m most opposed to is the usual do nothing until player inflation has climbed up for 2 more years and then extend him, like the team’s been doing for the past few seasons. 

[Pcola]

1 hour ago, Patriot Killa said:

Usually because the individual trying to get the most out of a contract is more interested in what he has done rather than the entire team’s resume. He isn’t taking any of those guys(for good or worse) with him so he tries to focus on what he accomplished as a player. Nothing wrong with it. In Cousins case I don’t mind. I would do the same. Fitzpatrick was really the stat stuff though.

This is also like given credit to an OL for his team winning 13 games.  It’s a difficult dynamic to give one player the credit win or lose.  Washington has the worst roster in their division last year (before all the NYG injuries.)

What Cousins needs to show is that he is an accurate QB with the ability to make all the throws and can break down presnap what defenses are tying to to him to slow the offense down.

The fact that regardless, of how bad his receivers are, he can still move his team up and down the field speaks volumes.

What will be interesting is that if the Jets sign Cousins, we all know we have a legitimate QB.  If the team doesn’t succeed, it’s all on coaching.

[ECURB]

58 minutes ago, jetspenguin said:

Funny how people are willing to give the house to a guy so we can be set at qb for 5 years but balk at throwing the house at a trade to the top pick so we can be set for the next 10 years.

What happens when the 1st round pick sucks? Like a lot of them do...

[jetspenguin]

1 minute ago, ECURB said:

What happens when the 1st round pick sucks? Like a lot of them do...

WHEN? lol already assuming that he will suck huh? ok I'll play, what happens when Kirk falls untouched in a preseason game, breaks his neck and has to retire and never plays a game for the Jets? Happens all the time in this league

[Charlie Brown]

23 hours ago, jetspenguin said:

Funny how people are willing to give the house to a guy so we can be set at qb for 5 years but balk at throwing the house at a trade to the top pick so we can be set for the next 10 years.

No one is against drafting a QB. But fans of over 30 years all know the drill. We have seen that play before. 

Also.......There is no such thing as a sure thing in this draft.  

If we were talking a about Peyton Manning than yes but we are not; anyone you move up for is a risk, and hence you had better have a quality plan B in place as well. 

And based upon the Jets recent past, we don’t have a real plan B, so we or many of us saying go for the sure thing rather than get nothing, cause that is the Jets seeming plan  

The Jets had a chance last year to draft a QB as good as anyone in this draft and they passed and that says everything IMO. 

[RedBeardedSavage]

59 minutes ago, jetspenguin said:

Actually we dont really know what result we are going to get with Cousins. We know what he has looked like what the redskins, their players, their coaching staff and their management. Thus far that has produced a lot of yards and not a lot of wins. 

In the last 3 years they have 24 wins, in the last 3 years we have 20. I am hoping that those who want him so bad have higher expectations than that....even with this coaching staff and roster. 

My point is that either way the risk is significant but with a rookie we have more of a long term solution. Its a better risk with the chance at a greater reward imo. 

The common sense conclusion that I arrived at is that I can far more reliably project what I'd get from Cousins than what I'd get from one of the rookie quarterbacks in this class.  

Picking @ 6, I also don't have a choice in which rookie I'd want to select.  That's another gamble in itself.  Do we pass on Cousins, watch him sign with another team and then wait at six to see who falls?  That's the least expensive solution, both in cap space and in draft picks, but it's also the least precise and leaves the most up to chance, right?

I'd be singing a different tune if the draft came before free agency, or if the draft was still in April but we had a top two pick.  But the situation being what it is, the only logical choice is to make a big play for Cousins - and if he chooses another team, then we can talk about the merits of trading up, for whom and the cost.  

But right now, the circumstances dictate that the only front we have an advantage on, the only front where we control our own destiny in acquiring a quarterback, is the free agent market - since we have the advantage of cap space.  

[jetspenguin]

2 minutes ago, Charlie Brown said:

No one is against drafting a QB. But fans of over 30 years all know the drill. We seen that play before. 

Also.......There is no such thing as a sure thing in this draft.  

If we were talking a about Peyton Manning than yes but we are not; anyone you move up for us a risk, and hence you had better have quality plan B in place as well. 

And based upon the Jets recent past we don’t have a real plan B so we or many of us saying go for the sure thing rather than get nothing real cause that is the Jets seeming plan  

The Jets has a chance last year to draft a QB as good as anyone in this draft and they passed and that says everything IMO. 

I hear you, I am a plus 30 year fan too. I know there is no sure thing in the draft and every year there are questions about the top prospects including last year. I remember all the complaints about the ones coming out and all the talk about how this years group was so much better. I also see all those hindsight prognosticators who now sing a different tune. 

I am not against signing Cousins, I am against giving him a fully guaranteed contract that will make sure he is here longer than the man who signed him. I am not 100% sold on him but not against signing him. I think he is the best of the bunch available this year sure but I dont have the confidence that he will come here and be the savior that some believe he will be.  

[jetspenguin]

2 minutes ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

The common sense conclusion that I arrived at is that I can far more reliably project what I'd get from Cousins than what I'd get from one of the rookie quarterbacks in this class.  

Picking @ 6, I also don't have a choice in which rookie I'd want to select.  That's another gamble, do we pass on Cousins, watch him sign with another team and then wait at six to see who falls?  That's least expensive solution, both in cap space and in draft picks, but it's also the least precise and leaves the most up to chance, right?

I'd be singing a different tune if the draft came before free agency, or if the draft was still in April but we had a top two pick.  But the situation being what it is, the only logical choice is to make a big play for Cousins - and if he chooses another team, then we can talk about the merits of trading up and the likelihood of the cost.  

The circumstances dictate the plan for me far more than any of the players.  

Lots of common sense in this post and lost I agree with. I dont advocate picking @6 over Cousins but I do advocate trading to the top pick and then you decide who you feel is the guy and have the balls to put it on the line. This management and coaching staff are gone in a few years anyway so you might as well go for it. If you pick right you are here for the foreseeable future, if you are wrong then you had a short shelf life anyway.

I would rather make the trade, pick my guy, surround the kid with talent that I sign and draft this year and next. A rookie that is worth the top pick can be successful if he has a good team around him. Hell, look at how far we got with the Sanchize.

I dont mind going after Cousins but not with a fully guaranteed 5 year contract that this management staff wont be around to live with if it backfires. 

[adb280z]

7 hours ago, Lupz27 said:

Just because the media is saying this the sheep believe it, it’s utter nonsense, Cousins is no better then any of the 3 Minnesota QB’s when they are healthy period stop!  Stop being a sheep, understand the NFL, the NFL media, and the NFL players all want you to think every single little thing happening is new, and unheard of don’t stop tuning in, don’t stop clicking my articles, don’t stop listening to my podcasts, don’t stop driving up the price on my unwanted by his former team mediocre QB that I want to get 30+ million a year for to get rich off of.  Use your brain think for yourself don’t let them tell you what to believe, and think.

What has Bradford ever done better than Cousins?  Oh, he's also never really healthy for long.

Bridgewater obliterated his knee and has never had a season like Cousins.

Keenum is the only one that has had a season comparable to Cousins in his 6th year in the league.  Was it a fluke or real?  You wanna take that bet?

[Paradis]

What happens when the 1st round pick sucks? Like a lot of them do...

 

What a cop out post. What happens if Kirk’s a bust. What happens our next HC sucks. What happens when 3 of our 4 best defensive players go down with injuries. What happens if the jets blow.

 

Can’t run the team like a pussy.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RedBeardedSavage]

1 minute ago, jetspenguin said:

Lots of common sense in this post and lost I agree with. I dont advocate picking @6 over Cousins but I do advocate trading to the top pick and then you decide who you feel is the guy and have the balls to put it on the line. This management and coaching staff are gone in a few years anyway so you might as well go for it. If you pick right you are here for the foreseeable future, if you are wrong then you had a short shelf life anyway.

I would rather make the trade, pick my guy, surround the kid with talent that I sign and draft this year and next. A rookie that is worth the top pick can be successful if he has a good team around him. Hell, look at how far we got with the Sanchize.

I dont mind going after Cousins but not with a fully guaranteed 5 year contract that this management staff wont be around to live with if it backfires. 

Fair enough.  Trading up for 'our' choice of prospect is plan B, in my eyes at least.  I prefer using our cap space than trading away picks since we're flush with cash at the moment.  

This offseason is the clearest opportunity we've had in a long time to acquire a franchise quarterback; between Cousins and this draft class, there are so many options.  We better not f*ck this up.  

[ASH1962]

On ‎2‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 3:42 PM, T0mShane said:

I’m choosing to believe that this is just Cousins’ agent grinding out an extra guaranteed year from Elway. 

me 2, there is absolutely no evidence of the claim in the OP whatsoever.

[Dinamite]

16 minutes ago, jetspenguin said:

Lots of common sense in this post and lost I agree with. I dont advocate picking @6 over Cousins but I do advocate trading to the top pick and then you decide who you feel is the guy and have the balls to put it on the line. This management and coaching staff are gone in a few years anyway so you might as well go for it. If you pick right you are here for the foreseeable future, if you are wrong then you had a short shelf life anyway.

I would rather make the trade, pick my guy, surround the kid with talent that I sign and draft this year and next. A rookie that is worth the top pick can be successful if he has a good team around him. Hell, look at how far we got with the Sanchize.

I dont mind going after Cousins but not with a fully guaranteed 5 year contract that this management staff wont be around to live with if it backfires. 

 

I think this is a good take - trade for #1 and pick your guy.  I'd be down for that.  Regardless of the cost,  however, the big issue I see is that I don't think Cleveland is trading out of that spot.   And I don't think the Giants are trading with the jets for a franchise QB.   So we would be locked out of top 2 spots.    That is the big problem.  We would have to trade to #3 and settle for 3rd best QB (or a chance one of the top 2 slips down, although unlikely).

 

 

 

 

[jetspenguin]

1 minute ago, Dinamite said:

 

I think this is a good take - trade for #1 and pick your guy.  I'd be down for that.  Regardless of the cost,  however, the big issue I see is that I don't think Cleveland is trading out of that spot.   And I don't think the Giants are trading with the jets for a franchise QB.   So we would be locked out of top 2 spots.    That is the big problem.  We would have to trade to #3 and settle for 3rd best QB (or a chance one of the top 2 slips down, although unlikely).

 

I actually think Cleveland would be willing to trade out of the top spot to 6 because they also have 4 and there are at least 4 qb's to choose from. They have a propensity to think they are smarter than everyone else these last few years so I am hoping they love Allen and they think they can get him at 4 or take Chubb or Barkley at 4 and grab Jackson/Mayfield at 6. 

I'd never trade the house to get the 3rd best of anything that's to "Jetsy" for me.

[jgb]

1 hour ago, ECURB said:

What happens when the 1st round pick sucks? Like a lot of them do...

Reasonable questions as to whether a draft pick may bust: NOT ALLOWED.

1 hour ago, jetspenguin said:

WHEN? lol already assuming that he will suck huh? ok I'll play, what happens when Kirk falls untouched in a preseason game, breaks his neck and has to retire and never plays a game for the Jets? Happens all the time in this league

Speculation that a FA will break his neck and never play a snap for the Jets in the regular season: ALLOWED.

This one may challenge for butt fumble of the week honors.

[HighPitch]

2 hours ago, jetspenguin said:

Funny how people are willing to give the house to a guy so we can be set at qb for 5 years but balk at throwing the house at a trade to the top pick so we can be set for the next 10 years.

Hes got a point. In a perfect worls, wed be looking to draft a qb with the 6th 

[Dinamite]

45 minutes ago, jetspenguin said:

I actually think Cleveland would be willing to trade out of the top spot to 6 because they also have 4 and there are at least 4 qb's to choose from. They have a propensity to think they are smarter than everyone else these last few years so I am hoping they love Allen and they think they can get him at 4 or take Chubb or Barkley at 4 and grab Jackson/Mayfield at 6. 

I'd never trade the house to get the 3rd best of anything that's to "Jetsy" for me.

If Cleveland had kept the prior management, I would agree with you.  But Dorsey is a good GM and I don't think Cleveland can get away with "hoping" to get the QB they want at 4.  not this year, after passing on QB the last couple of drafts.

[varjet]

28 minutes ago, Dinamite said:

If Cleveland had kept the prior management, I would agree with you.  But Dorsey is a good GM and I don't think Cleveland can get away with "hoping" to get the QB they want at 4.  not this year, after passing on QB the last couple of drafts.

The crazy part is that, rather than paying Cousins close to $30mm, the Browns could theoretically take 2 of the top 4 Qbs and see who works out.  They can trade the other later.  All at a cost less than half of what Cousins would cost.  Imagine that?

The NFL would freak out, but it is possible.