DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Kirk Cousins, we all are already

Don't ask me why, because I don't know...I just don't see Brees open to playing here while i do see Cousins being open to that.

I also consider Cousins has maybe 10 years left. If we could sign him, we could pass a QB at #1. If we signed Brees, I think we would still need to invest one of the 2 top picks on a QB.

If we stopped with just Cousins we’d be an injury away from Kiser again. That’s scary.

Not unlike most teams.

We aren't going to sign Cousins, then draft a QB in the first round. I think all of that would be discussed before Cousins signed.

I could see us selecting a 3rd or 4th round QB.

If we get Cousins and wait until the 3rd or 4th rd. for a QB Fulk would be my choice ...

j/c

Cousins, in my mind, is good but not great QB. He is what he is. If we sign him and forego drafting the top QB (by our assessment), we run the risk of wasting the opportunity at a stud QB a la Carson Wentz. Or we could draft our best choice of QB and he doesn't pan out, wasting a pick a la JFF.

So the choice is risking a wasted pick or a wasted opportunity. In my mind, wasting the opportunity is the bigger risk.

I agree 84, I said "if" we draft a QB after the first two rds., Personally I take a QB at #1 regardless of who we get in FA ... JMHO

Ex-Redskins GM on Kirk Cousins: 'I don't see special'

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...ont-see-special

"He's a good player," McCloughan told 104.3 The Fan. "Is he special? I don't see special." McCloughan added that when he first tagged Cousins in 2016, Washington was "building a roster around him to make him special." While Cousins is "talented" and he "works his tail off", McCloughan warned that for Cousins to succeed, a team needs more than just the signal-caller.

"You just need to have some talent around him," McCloughan warned,"because you don't want him to be throwing the ball 35 to 40 times to win the game. "

Scot McCloughan started his career working for Ron Wolf.

They sure did a heck of a job building that roster around him.

J/C

I am sick of hearing fans say "hes not worth the money"

1. Its not your money - who cares what they spend
2. What good has NOT spending the money done for us - 1-31 that's what good
3. IDC if they give Cousins 50 million a year, if he wins us more than a dang game every two years, its money well worth spent!

I guess if mediocrity is your goal you would be correct.

If mediocre wins some games, then it beats the hell out of "trust me" going forward. I think two QBs, one FA and top draft. I am willing to be wrong that way if it solves our issues at QB.
We can't keep up wit the needs recreate while we try to finesse the future. By example, we need a QB so we don't turn it over more than 30 times for that alone, and maybe a LT or two, and a CB, the needs seem to snowball while we seem to think the draft will cure everything, the coach will cure everything. Put some issues to bed. I don't expect to have any QB get us a ton of wins alone. But I have seen him get a huge share of blame in losses far beyond reasonable expectation. Let us work FA hard, get two Qb's, shop and trade hard for other positions. But we are carrying over our most severe issues and critically neglecting some. Try something different; I am willing to take a loss in new ways. I have no fire in my belly for gutless football like last season where gameplans did not work repeatedly and few adjustments helped in game or next week.

We need to shed some folks and replace them. And we need to get better.

It's not the goal, but it's a huge step up from where we are now.

The problem is you aren't going to pay Cousins 20+ million a year on a long term contract to be a back up in a year. If you pay Cousins starter money, he'll be the starter. We won't sign a QB to starter money and pick a top QB in the draft. It will be one or the other. It's just not going to happen bard.

I'm not saying you have a bad idea. But if you draft a QB at #1, you sign a band aid and a back up on the FA market. Not a Kirk cousins or an Alex Smith.

Then do you propose we we skip drafting a QB at #1 or #4? Because if you sign Cousins to a 20+ million dollar contract for four years, and make no mistake that is what it would take to sign him, you aren't going to pay starter money for four years to be your back up in a year.

If we get Cousins, then no, I don't think we would draft a QB at 1 or 4.

I'm really struggling with the idea of Cousins. I think he could be "the guy", but I'm not sure enough about that to pass on the top QB prospects in a year where we have the picks to get them.

I'm glad I'm not the one that has to make this decision.


But back to the point of the thread... I don't understand the "hate" people have for Cousins.

I really have zero hate for Cousins. I don't actually think he's a bad QB at all. What I do believe is that there is a very talented draft class at the QB position this year. We have our pick of the litter. I know that if you look across the NFL, the vast majority of teams have answered the QB position via the draft.

Browns fans have become gun shy about drafted QB's. We have traded down, waited, picked QB's at #22, the third round, the second round, and basically wasted opportunities to address the problem. So watching failure after failure in the draft, I can see why people are gun shy.

But what I think fans should keep in mind, is the Browns have only drafted a QB #1 one time since 1999. We picked a kid who was drawing up plays in the dirt. We had no OL and he was lost. It was a terrible pick at the time.

So while I'm not completely sold on Cousins, if that's the way this FO goes, I fully understand it will be a huge improvement. But what I think will happen is we will end up passing on a great QB in order to do it. Only time will tell if I would be right about that but that's certainly my belief on the matter.

I would be much happier with a journeyman QB in free agency and either Rosen or Darnold at #1.

That is not a problem. Going all in on the draft choice and failing is the problem.

Just look at one of your examples. Alex Smith. The Chiefs sat a rookie behind him the entire season and are certain the rookie is the QB of the future so they are trading Smith and teams are lining up for him. If we sign Smith to a $20 mil plus contract and figure out the same thing about the rookie that we draft, teams will also be lining up to trade with us.

I'm so sick and tired of losing I would tempt Bret Farve out of retirement if it would mean only 7 - 9.

Actually I would love if they signed someone like Cousins or Alex smith and drafted a QB at #1. That would be a dream come true scenario.

But the problem is, that isn't usually how NFL teams handle these situations. You see, Kansas City is moving on from
Smith. They drafted his replacement. I'm not saying it's never happened, but I certainly can't think of any NFL team who has actually signed a FA QB to a four year deal at 20 millions dollars plus and drafted a QB at #1 in the draft.

Sure, we could set a precedent that no other team has ever done. But I just don't see that happening. Sometimes I don't post what I would love to see happen. I just post what I think will happen.

And I don't see us drafting a QB at #1 and signing a FA QB to starter money.

KC literally just did what we should do! They played a Vet that they traded for and groomed his rookie replacement and now they are trading the Vet because THEY KNOW WHAT THEY HAVE NOW! This doesn't take a ton of brain cells here.

It is not unprecedented.

Ever heard of Steve Young?
Aaron Rodgers?
Tom Brady?
Carson Palmer?
Philip Rivers?

They all sat behind a Vet as a rookie. Rodgers sat for quite a while.

This isn't something new.

Our QB choices have been "bad, worse, and worst" for a very long time. I would love to have a solid or better veteran, a QB at #1 overall, and Kizer. That would be a QR room that no one would freak out over. The veteran could compete with Kizer, the rookie could sit, and learn how to be an NFL QB. There is always a market for quality QBs, so if the rook happens to come on strong. say in year 2, then trade the veteran for value.

I hope that we add as much quality to our QB room as possible. Look at the Vikings and Eagles, They both needed their backups.Lord knows that we have used our backups over the years. It makes no sense for us to skimp at the most important position.

At this point I would be damned well please with mediocrity - would you not? going on 20 years man, 20 years. ill take 8-8 every year for 20 years over the crap we been forced fed.

Quit reaching. That ain't what Pits talking about.

KC took Mahomes 3 years into Smith's reign.

Your talking about freshly signing a Solid Vet who will Start and turning around and drafting the dude that's going to take over for him at #1 in the draft.

That's IGNORANCE. It ain't gonna happen.

There's TWO QB'S in this draft that are virtual LOCKS to be at least better than average QB'S going forward. Darnold and Rosen. Everyone else is a major projection.

We need to get the Vet and take one at #1 and he WILL NOT SIT very long.

It ain't rocket science.

None of those people you listed were drafted at #1 in the draft, none of them.

And K.C. did not sign Alex Smith the same year they drafted Mahomes. None of your examples match the criteria you're talking about. Let's try this again, shall we.

Tell me one NFL team who signed a top 10 paid FA QB and drafted a QB at #1 in the draft in the same year.

Of course a rookie should sit behind a veteran. But it's odd that you can't seem to find a single case that matches what I asked you.

There are reasons for that.

He knows that. At this point he just wants to bicker and fight.

Smith will be 34 to start the season. Cousins will turn 30 halfway through thecseason. If we sign Smith or trade for Smith, it makes sense to draft a QB at 1 or 4. If we sign Cousins, it doesn't make sense since he will be here long term. This isn't hard. Smith and Cousins are at different stages of their careers.

I know Trubisky wasn’t #1 and Glennon is only at #19 I think but that is the closest example I can think of.

15 minutes after the draft, it makes no difference where you are drafted. That sets your price tag but it's your performance that determines if you make the roster and become the starter.

San Diego did use their #1 pick on a QB that year but Eli Manning didn't want to play for them.

Here's the headline that the rocket surgeons are setting themselves up for...

And you claim I'm not funny?

It is not our money, correct. But the NFL has a salary cap. It needs to be managed well. I would prefer my team spending money wisely instead of throwing it around like Pac Man Jones at a strip club.



The Browns spent $182,044,334 on their players in 2017, 5th most in the league.



I would also like to sign Kirk Cousins (if it is an option).

https://twitter.com/YahooSchwab/status/955500367403347968

Cousins would be the perfect fit for Cleveland. We could get Fitzpatrick and Barkley. With some stout drafting, we easily make a run at the playoffs. We need a secondary coach who has a clue. Go Browns!

I feel regardless where Cousins goes, he'll get more money than what he's worth because he's of the few veteran QBs worth looking at.

35 million, eh at first that sounds horrid for Kirk, but if he came here and starts winning - no one blinks an eye then.

I agree with you because you will always overpay in the FA market, always. Proven commodities and demand always drives up their prices. And at the QB position, even more so.

I also agree with you that if you win, nobody will blink an eye at it.

I don't beleive the suggestion was to give him that, but rather that they could do that and still be at the top in cap space.

This being said, front loading the contract would not be a bad thing do to. It eats up our cap space now without killing it in the future.

I thought I read somewhere that first round QB's have about a 50% success rate. I don't care for 50% success rate after 1-31.

We don't need to hit a homerun, a double at QB will work.

Just for giggles I started with the 2012 draft and went backwards 9 more drafts and gave the QBs drafted in the first round a A (good or better), B (average at best), or C (not so good). I ended up with 13 A's, 4 B's, and 14 Cs. The B's were RGIII, Tannehill, Freeman, and Jason Campbell. Regardless, that's about as close as 50% as is possible.

Hmmm, you might be a little too generous with your grading. I don't think I'd give RG3 a B. Tannehill is a strong B.

When I think of a 'B'level QB, I'm thinking of a guy that was by no means "great"... but was at least capable of holding down the starting gig (more having to do with there not being very many good QBs out there). Dalton might be a good example. Tyrod Taylor would be the perfect example.

Guys that can't stick on a roster aren't B-level.