Skip to content

Need to Know: Should the Redskins give Reed a new contract?

Jan 24, 2016, 7:09 AM EDT

Here is what you need to know on this Sunday, January 24, 31 days before the NFL Combine in Indianapolis.

Five thoughts on the state of the Redskins

If you were hit by the Blizzard of 2016, I hope all is well and you and yours got through it safely. Here are a few thoughts on the Redskins:

—Should the Redskins sign Jordan Reed, who is slated to be a free agent after the 2016 season, to a contract extension a year early like they did with Trent Williams and Ryan Kerrigan? As of now, Reed is slated to make $685,888 in 2016, a very cheap pride for one of the top five players at his position. There is a lot to consider, including his injury history. Another consideration, however, is the need to avoid letting a grossly underpaid player take the field. The team is likely to ask some players to take pay cuts this year because they are not likely to play up to their salaries. That is a lot easier to do if your track record says you will reward players who over perform their contracts. If you say, “A deal is a deal” to your best offensive player when he is underpaid then why wouldn’t a player say the same when asking him to take a pay cut? Keeping Reed on the cheap this year could prove to be penny-wise and pound-foolish.

—Another factor to consider in the Reed contract situation is the franchise tag. It’s relatively inexpensive for tight ends. Last year only the kicker/punter tag was worth less than the $8.33 million tight end tag. It will be more expensive in 2017 but it is unlikely to top $10 million and it is a very viable option if Reed plays through 2016 and they can’t come to a contract agreement. However, the franchise tag needs to be available and if they can’t come to an agreement with Kirk Cousins this year and need to tag him they will have to make a choice to tag one or the other a year from now. That is one of the dangers of just tagging Cousins rather than working out a contract with him; you lose leverage down the road.

—The time to rehash the Redskins career of Robert Griffin III will come soon enough but one thing, one misstep, sticks out in my mind. It was the week after he was injured against the Ravens, when Griffin scrambled towards the sideline but instead of running out of bounds he cut back to the middle of the field and met up with Haloti Ngata, who hit him and caused his knee to bend in an unnatural direction. A few days later I asked Kyle Shanahan if they told Griffin he should have proceed to go out of bounds. No, said the offensive coordinator, they were fine with him going for the extra yardage. Griffin also said he did not regret going back into the dangerous area of the field. The play was the beginning of the end of RG3 and the coaches, like Griffin, saw no need to have their high-cost asset protect himself.

—Should the Redskins re-sign Terrance Knighton? Teams didn’t test him very often running the ball, running 74 plays up the middle per the NFL. Only five teams faced fewer runs up the gut. But teams saw success when they did go there, averaging 5.1 yards per attempt, 29th in the NFL. Sure, it’s more complex than that and Pot Roast wasn’t necessarily in the lineup for all of those runs. But if you also look at plays off of left guard (30, 4.1 avg., 15th) and right guard (58, 3.8 avg., 15th), you don’t see some sort of impregnable fortress in the middle of the defense. This doesn’t equal letting Knighton walk necessarily but they will need better play from him if he stays.


—During the season I was thinking that there was zero chance that Alfred Morris would be back with the Redskins. I still think the chances are against it but now I’m not so sure. If they let him walk in free agency they would not have a reliable running back on the roster. They would have to sign one in free agency and it’s possible that Scot McCloughan will look around and find that Morris is the best option if they can come to a contract agreement. I still think the chances are against it but at this point I’m not going to rule it out.


—The Redskins last played a game 14 days ago. It will be about 231 days until they play another one.

Days until: NFL Combine 31; NFL free agency starts 45; 2016 NFL draft 95

In case you missed it

  1. garg8050 - Jan 24, 2016 at 7:28 AM

    I agree with paying Reed now, instead of later. He is clearly one of the top 5 TEs in the game. I think getting T. Williams locked up long-term was also a good idea; not sure about Kerrigan’s deal. He is a great Redskin, but he’s getting paid like a top 5 OLB, and I don’t believe he has that sort of impact on a game, as opposed to someone like a Clay Matthews. Reed is the focal point of the offense, and will remain that, given the match up problems he creates. Maybe they can put in some sort of out clause in the event of a career threatening concussion.

    To me, top two priorities before the draft and free agency are contracts for Cousins and Reed.

    • redskinsnameisheretostay - Jan 24, 2016 at 12:16 PM

      “He is a great Redskin, but he’s getting paid like a top 5 OLB, and I don’t believe he has that sort of impact on a game, as opposed to someone like a Clay Matthews.”

      Kerrigan is at his best when the pressure comes to him. He is not a guy you can consistently create pressure but thrives on it when if comes from the other side. That’s why I think Galette is so important here. He IMO is a superior edge rusher to Orakpo and will help Kerrigan significantly.

      • rtcwon - Jan 24, 2016 at 6:55 PM

        I agree, Kerrigan is at his best as the other edge rusher, not the primary guy which teams scheme to stop. I also agree Galette is an upgrade over Rak as the primary edge rusher.

        See, your misunderstanding of the 3-4 is not personal.

        By the way, the Skins run a Mike/Mo concept where the ILBs are more interchangeable then in a Mike/Jack concept. That might confuse you since you seem to think the Jack is an OLB/DE hybrid. I will give you the benefit of doubt as different coaches use different names so your high school coach could have called either the Will or Sam a Jack.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Jan 24, 2016 at 7:35 PM

          rtcwon, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt as well since the Jack has always been my understanding as the OLB/DE hybid. The consensus seems to agree with me as well. However check it out for yourself and let me know if you find anyone who thinks otherwise.

          The weak side inside linebacker is typically called the “Will,” while the strong side or middle inside linebacker is called the “Mike”. “Sam” is a common designation for strong outside linebacker, while the other position is usually called “Jack” and is often a hybrid DE/LB.

          Yes I hate referencing Wikipedia as well but I’m in no mood to track down more articles on the subject and Rich only allows one link per comment.

        • rtcwon - Jan 24, 2016 at 8:37 PM

          I’ll take that benefit of doubt, I could be wrong. Sam, Mike & Will in 4-3s seems pretty universal and what most of us probably grew up playing. My understanding of the 3-4 names was the outside guys kept the Will & Sam while the new ILB got the new name. But Sam, Mike, Will, Jack makes sense too. As I said, everybody has different names and I could be wrong.

          But I will say the concept of the seventh man being a OLB/DE hybrid is pretty dated. And to me, a weak side ILB in a 3-4 is still much more like a 4-3 Mike than a Will. And a weak side OLB in a 3-4 is a lot like a 4-3 Will.

          Anyways, this spurs a fun new topic. It did seem to me, they would flip Kerrigan & Smith, keeping Smith on the weak side. But years past with Rak & Kerrigan or even this year with Murphy & Kerrigan, they seemed to stay on their side regardless of formation strength.

          Do they consider the OLBs to be two different positions with Kerrigan & Murphy (and formerly Rak) able to play both but the rookie only able to play weak side (no matter whether it is called Jack or Will) or do they just view them as LOLB & ROLB but wanted to limit the rookie’s exposure on the strong side?

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Jan 25, 2016 at 7:37 AM

          “Anyways, this spurs a fun new topic. It did seem to me, they would flip Kerrigan & Smith, keeping Smith on the weak side. But years past with Rak & Kerrigan or even this year with Murphy & Kerrigan, they seemed to stay on their side regardless of formation strength.”

          To play a traditional Jack (Jack of all Trades) role most of the time the responsibility requires him to apply pressure, but he must also be able to drop back into coverage. Personally I don’t recall Preston Smith in coverage very often. So they may have been decoying his coverage issues by playing him on the outside strong side. He is a rookie and dropping back in coverage is the most difficult responsibility to perform effectively for most a OLB. So you may be right in that his role was really limited to placing him where he just applies the pressure.

          I’ve been “lobbying” here for Preston to move to DE. I still think that will eventually happen especially with Junior Galette healthy. Preston is extremely capable of creating pressure off the line and he was very good at it when he played at Mississippi State. He has the physical attributes like strength, huge hands, and long arms. He would need to just add 20 pounds. That’s not a lot of weight for a guy of his frame and length. Anyway assuming he remains in his current spot at linebacker, Preston was just a rookie so his role could expand to more coverage playing the Jack next season.

  2. sidepull - Jan 24, 2016 at 8:25 AM

    If they can come to an agreement with Reed by all means do so. He was fantastic this year and I think snubbed in the Pro Bowl. He was trouble game planning for by opposing defenses and he really overcame the injury bug label he had on him. He proved his worth.

    RG3s end was Ngata. That was always the beginning of the end to me. Never the same. That was a horrible thing to watch, that whipping action and how his physical gift of being a speedster went south right the and there. Who knew at the time? He still has a rocket arm and is still faster than most any QB so I hope the best for him always unless he plays against the Redskins!

    Disappointed in Knighton. Expected more. I guess I watched the clip of him when he was a Bronco pancaking RG3 and thought we were going to get more of that action. It was such a great signing, to have a real NT and it was going to make our D so much more formidable, finally a true NT! Now I don’t know. I was all for signing Danny Shelton last year and it seems he has had a bit of an adjustment in Chicago. I was/am tired of the conversions. Sure Baker can play NT but I really like him where he’s at better. I know if they are going to feature the 3-4 that a true nose is a need. I just don’t know now based off of what I saw that Knighton is the guy.

    • redskinsnameisheretostay - Jan 24, 2016 at 12:12 PM

      “RG3s end was Ngata. That was always the beginning of the end to me. Never the same.”

      Actually that injury should have been an easy recovery. The end of RG3 was the management of that injury by Dr. Andrews, Shanahan, and RG3 himself. He should never have been rushed back on the field and he certainly should never have returned in the 2nd half of that playoff game.

      No way Baker should return to NT. he was pedestrian at best in that position. He is at his best playing the one gap DE on a 3-4 defense. I think the team should move on from Knighton if they are able to. Guys that have weight problems are way to unpredictable. It’s an indicator that he is not fully committed to playing his best in the NFL. There is no room for guys like that in this league.

      • rtcwon - Jan 24, 2016 at 6:58 PM

        Again, I agree with you here on RGIII’s injury and Swaggy not being a NT.

    • John - Jan 24, 2016 at 10:00 PM

      Our D does not use the NT in the traditional sense. A nose tackle normally ties up blockers allowing linebackers to make plays.

      In this defense the linemen and linebackers are in gap control. Example, NT to gap right of center, ILB to gap left of center and so on.

      This defense in general lacks a serious difference maker in the front 7. Smith can rush the passer but is still learning how to play LB after being a D lineman. Those transitions don’t always work out (Chris Coleman, Andre Carter and a few others come to mind).

      Would still like them to get a real ball buster up front. Nice to have guys who can crash in from the edges but you need someone who can pressure up the middle. When the Skins did it in 91, they had Stokes and Mann on the edges and Jumpy Geathers coming up the middle.

  3. JOHNNY B - Jan 24, 2016 at 8:36 AM

    Signing Reed to a long term contract now will depend on how they plan on using him in the future. With Paul coming back will they target Reed as much if so I would say sign him now and it will cost them less. If he has another dominant season with no injuries we might not be able to afford him. So get him signed now. If they sign pot roast to a new deal it has to be team friendly. He doesn’t take care of himself when it comes to weight and conditioning. He wasn’t dominant but he did take on double teams all of the time. This allowed the ends and olbs more pressure. I think keep Knighton and upgrade Hatcher with Galette will be all that we will need. With Baker and Kerrigan on the other side we are good. But I still think that we need to keep Hatcher as a backup with limited play and pay. KEEP MORRIS his declining yards will bring him back cheap and I think he deserves 1 more year. The o-line has as much to blame for the bad run game as does the backs and the coaches. Give 1 more year for him to prove that he can or can’t get it done.

    • sidepull - Jan 24, 2016 at 9:23 AM

      Yes sir. Alf deserves another year! Bring em back.

      • hitmeimopen - Jan 24, 2016 at 9:39 AM

        Galette had an Achilles tear. It takes a long rehab to come back from it. Let’s not expect Galette to be any sort of savior next year. For him to bend around the OT and head for the QB will put a ton of stress on that tendon. Beware!

      • abanig - Jan 24, 2016 at 10:32 AM

        Given Reed’s injury history – unlike that of Kerrigan & Williams last offseason – Reed needs to prove he can sustain his production from last year IMO.

        • ET - Jan 24, 2016 at 3:04 PM

          Bump up his base salary 3x (or whatever’s appropriate) and make a significant portion of the offer performance-based. That’d address your concerns. I’m often baffled by high-guarantee contracts that don’t tie enough dollars to performance—like Galette’s old contract with the Saints. That kind of outcome is just bad business.

        • abanig - Jan 24, 2016 at 3:29 PM

          But they don’t need to do that at the moment with Galette. I’d be shocked if he isn’t back on a similar contract to what he signed last year.

    • redskinsnameisheretostay - Jan 24, 2016 at 12:01 PM

      I think there are better options for Morris in FA than the Redskins.

      Knighton is a liability because of his weight and the fact he didn’t perform very well. I tend to agree with “Abanig” (sic) about aggressively going after the Jets NT Damon Harrison. The Jets don’t seem compelled to resign him due to the amount of talent they have on D-line. He’d be a significant upgrade over Knighton.

      I still feel they need to structure Cousins contract in a manner that is back loaded and Cap friendly front loaded. If the cap hit on Cousins for next season is under 15 million then we have a shot at getting Harrison but he won’t be cheap. I know the 15 million is more arbitrary than a real threshold value. However, Scot likes to stay under the cap and we have players on the team we also need to lock down along with Cousins. There are many ways to get more wiggle room out of the salary cap like restructuring Garcon’s. However, 17 to 20 million for Cousins seems a too high for only one good season. A similar contract as what Foles got last season would be ideal IMO for Cousins.

      • JOHNNY B - Jan 24, 2016 at 2:24 PM

        I would agree if we were not in the cap situation that we are in. It looks good on paper but with all of our FAs that we need to resign and Cousins contract preventing player’s like Reed from ever seeing fa. This will leave us with little to no cap room. Sure we can renegotiate some players contracts or cut them but doing everything that we need to do plus getting replacements for Knighton, Hatcher and Morris just isn’t happening this year. No team plays well in its first year with a new defense or any changes in the offense. There’s some things that we are going to have to work with till next year. This is just the way I see McCloughan doing things this year. The final touches to the team will be in year 3 of the rebuild in which will be a running back if needed and a O’Dell type of wide out . This year will be a little offense and a hole lot of defense.

        • Thetruthis - Jan 24, 2016 at 5:12 PM

          If the skins pay a recent 8 game beat bad teams QB like a playoff winning Superbowl winning QB they are going to have problems in the locker room that play out on the field. Tom Brady only gets $9Mil a year and if you know of any way to compare the NFL body of work of Kirk and Tom then I would like to see it. This is the NFL and Kirk has got to prove he can win big games against good teams in order to get anything close to top money. So, the skins and people on this site need to snap out of it. That is just bad business. The skins should give Kirk between $3 and $5 mil the first year and double it the next if he is successful against winning teams. That is a considerable increase for kirk and if he thinks he can go anywhere else in the NFL and get more with more support and a guaranteed starting job for which he does not have to compete or perform then, by all means, he should go and give it a try. Colt will be quite happy to fill in. None of the other NFL teams give contracts to unproven QB’s. All the top contracts are given out after QB’s have either won the Super Bowl or taken their teams far into the playoffs. Nothing else matters. What is kirk cousins without Jordan Reed? Yeah, give Kirk $17 and pay Reed pennies and see how long that romance lasts.

        • JOHNNY B - Jan 24, 2016 at 5:43 PM

          Even though Kirk’s last games were against bad teams the stats were elite level. Proven by let’s see Arron Rodgers this year’s stats no elite stats this year missing his #1 . Tom Brady had elite stats against bad teams this year average stats against good teams. But the way who is Brady without Gronk average. When a QB gets elite stats it is not from playing all good or great teams. And just to let you know Cousins is far from being elite but he is going to be good. I am willing to franchise tag him to see what he can do next year but if he has a great season his contract will bankrupt the Redskins. Doing it now will save 5 mil a year and get a team friendly option to opt out for bad play.

        • goskins44 - Jan 24, 2016 at 9:12 PM

          @ truth – Yes, Brady’s base salary is $9M but that’s because they just renegotiated his contract and turned almost half his salary to bonus. He received an $18M signing bonus for the 3 yr contract making his salary $15M. That’s still low for him, but it’s not really $9M.

          Kirk Cousins will easily get $15M/yr and probably more. It will likely cost us $18M/yr (bonus included) to keep him. The money you are talking about would not be enough to sign a journeyman back-up. I know some, especially in here think that’s all he is, but the rest of the league will value him much more than that.

          Finally, not sure where you get pay Kirk $17M and Reed pennies. No reason you can’t pay them both. There are a lot of creative things they can do with the cap.

      • John - Jan 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM

        Cousins will get big bucks. Not Brady/Manning bucks but at least Kapernick/Miami QB money if not more.

        Cousins will perform better after having this season under his belt and going through OTAs and a full camp and preseason with the starters. Having that will get the timing down and minimize the misfires like in the 1st Giants game.

        He’s shown he’ll work for it. He learns from his mistakes. He is durable. Just keep good people around him.

  4. weneedlinemen42 - Jan 24, 2016 at 9:14 AM

    Yes, he’s too good to let go. He’s going to get paid, it should be with the ‘Skins. That might mean we have to devote the bulk of the cap available to receivers to him, but he has the potential to be one of the best possession and red-zone receivers in the game.

    That said, any contract should compel him to wear extra head protection. It should require him to wear one of those padded shells that Mark Kelso wore.

    Plus there should be directive put in place to stop everyone slapping each other about the head after positive plays.

    Reed will be a great player just so long as he can avoid concussions.

  5. weneedlinemen42 - Jan 24, 2016 at 9:43 AM

    The shouldn’t break the bank for Knighton, he wasn’t a massive difference maker when he was on the field. However, he does provide a solid veteran presence, and I think he helps Baker, who can become a genuine difference maker.

    So, I’d like to see Knighton on the team, but only if he accepts a contract that reflects his play. I don’t really hold out much hope of that. So far he has been unable to accept the value front of offices have assigned him and he’s ended up on a series of one year deals.

  6. berniebernard666 - Jan 24, 2016 at 9:45 AM

    Redskins would be stupid to give Jordan Reed a long term huge contract. He can’t play a full season because he gets injured. Multiple concussions. He is under contract for less than one million dollars for 2016 and the franchise tag for the T.E. position in 2017 is not excessive.

    So the Skins have him locked in for the next 2 years without breaking the bank and he has to prove he can play a 16 game season without a concussion or hamstring problem. NO….there is no way in Hell an intelligent G.M. would give him a contract when he is one hit away from a career ending concussion. Scott M is way to smart for that kind of stupid mistake….at least that is my take on the subject.

    • berniebernard666 - Jan 24, 2016 at 9:52 AM

      and with that said, as to your other point about Kirk Cousins…….it is inconceivable and completely impossible for Cousins to not have a long term deal within the next 3-4 weeks. I am not Nostradamus…and not an insider…I am just informing you that Captain Kirk will be signed shortly based on this: Scott M is smart. Way beyond smart…..and everything has been going great since the QB position was resolved and nobody at Redskins Park wants to go back to the drama. Its been a relief for all of us….and now we can all move forward and Kirk loves it in D.C. Loves Gruden. It is insanity to even ponder this subject. Look for a contract in February so Scott M can focus on making the rest of the team around Kirk even better.

      • kenlinkins - Jan 24, 2016 at 11:20 AM

        All Cousin must do to be paid $19 million in 2016 is nothing (i.e. force the Redskins to tag him). Any contract that doesn’t have double that amount in guaranteed money will be a non starter. Cousin can do nothing, get $19 million for 2016 and start the process all over again in 2017.

    • ET - Jan 24, 2016 at 11:29 AM

      Knighton is a tough case. He did underperform, no doubt about it. But is there a better (realistic) alternative out there? I’m not so sure. And if he can stick to a conditioning program, he should be more effective next season. My guess is that Knighton is re-signed. But I don’t doubt that Scot will be on the lookout for a longer term solution.

    • redskinsnameisheretostay - Jan 24, 2016 at 11:46 AM

      I couldn’t disagree more. Even a moderate raise for Reed to say 2 or 3 million a year can be cap friendly. Is there a NFL pundit, scout, or team for that matter that doesn’t think Reed has elite potential and that he didn’t demonstrated this in 2015? Any smart GM knows value of Reed is sky high right now regardless of his past injuries. Meanwhile you want to sign a long term deal for what would be far more money and costly to the salary cap on a QB with one good season? While Cousins showed some promise this season; he is not in the caliber of elite at his position. I agree with getting a contract done for Cousins now as an investment as long as the initial years are keep the cost below 15 million on the salary cap.

      It’s just poor strategy not to sign perennial all star players before they reach FA. Once they reach FA, you’ll been many times more to retain them. That perennial all star is Reed at the moment not Cousins.

      • redskinsnameisheretostay - Jan 24, 2016 at 11:49 AM

        “Once they reach FA, teams will have to pay many times more to retain a player of Reed’s caliber. “

  7. scottmccloughanfan - Jan 24, 2016 at 10:53 AM

    Too many other moving parts right now. Wait a year.

  8. kenlinkins - Jan 24, 2016 at 11:17 AM

    With the new CBA the owners have been able to place a makeshift reserve clause into effect. The four year contract all rookies must sign to play in the NFL favors the team as guaranteed money is never equal to the contract total. This allows the team two advantages: 1. to cut players who fail to live up to the performance / development levels the contract would suggest 2. to keep players paid below the market value if they out perform the suggested value until the end of a contract. The “Every time I call it a business, you want to call it a game / and when I call it a game, you call it a business” mind set is a very fast way to lose a locker room of a rebuilding team. GM’s understand that “right sizing” a good players contract is just as important as cutting players who under perform (i.e. two sides of the same coin). Reeds value to the Redskins and his market value are much more than what his contract calls for. While I am not sure just what that value is, I am sure it is much more than about $700K. Finding that value and keeping the Cap under control is the GM’s job. I am sure there is a way to rebuild the Redskins using the new “reserve clause” for rookies, right sizing players like Cousins – Reed, Cutting over paid players and being willing to correct contract mistakes from the past. IMO the Redskins should re-do Reeds contract and pay him market value for 2016 to about 2019.

    • redskinsnameisheretostay - Jan 24, 2016 at 11:30 AM

      Nicely put Ken and I expect Bruce is a big part of the contract evaluation as well.

  9. redskinsnameisheretostay - Jan 24, 2016 at 11:22 AM

    Cousins, Galette, and Reed should get long term deals if it is possible. I didn’t realize Reed’s was that low and for a 3rd round selection. He is a proven elite TE so I expect the Redskins to be working very hard to get him signed early which includes a huge raise in 2016.

    • goback2rfk - Jan 24, 2016 at 4:26 PM

      Reed can get the big $$$ next season when he proves he can make it injury free. No need to pay him for 2016 he is already under contract. Write the contract next season

  10. colmac69 - Jan 24, 2016 at 2:58 PM

    Cousins will get paid….whether we think it’s too much/too little it doesn’t matter….

    Knighton is tough call…..u look at his play and you think where is the impact…..then you look at his stats and there pretty similar to his career…..also you got to take into account all missed tackles especially first 10 or so games by the line and especially the inside guys like riley/robinson….the average per rush numbers aren’t gd but how much better would they b if tackles had been consistently made….Knighton could bn doing job required but behind him others weren’t. …or perhaps we/team expected more from him and he didn’t deliver….

    As for rgiii he was very unlucky in way he got tackled by nagata…he went left then headed upfield (think any qb would done same)…..he was still effective when he came back running ball but in a limited way…..seattle game he and team looked gd until he fell on play just before second td pass….that was when he re-injured himself and at that point or after nxt series when it was obvious he was done he should bn taken out so everybody has to take blame for that (I put that on shanahan as coach)…..his fourth qtr inj was an accumulation of hits and his medial ligaments finally gave way……not an expert but would think his recovery might bn quicker if he was taken out early but damage after he fell might have bn as bad as when he came out game for gd….

    As for reed rich makes very gd point about the tag….if cousins gets tagged in 16 and performs well then no long term deal after 16 u got potentially reed and cousins as free agents…do they really want to b in that position? I think they get long term deal done with cousins and take it from there…they got plenty salary cap room once they move guys on plus the 16 mill on rgiii….the gm is smart guy and I trust him to make right decisions…

    • goback2rfk - Jan 24, 2016 at 4:28 PM

      Cousins wont get tagged. He will take a decent 3 or 4 year contract. Something like 3 years 53 Million with 18.5 million fully guaranteed. Cousins wants that longer term deal, he wants security. They will get a deal done before the deadline.

      • Thetruthis - Jan 24, 2016 at 5:27 PM

        That would be a stupid move at this point. Are you skins unaware that Brady makes only $9mil a year? All the other top paid QB’s have all won super bowls or have won numerous playoff games. Kirk may be in FA, but that is no reason to structure a contract like a playoff winning QB. Kirk C makes 700K this year. No other NFL team is dumb enough or desperate enough, like the skins act to sign Kirk C given his limited body of work and proof of matching up against better teams. The NFL is a game of match ups. How well does a QB match up against GOOD defenses. Kirk has not done well against GOOD D’S. That alone is a reason to give him a two or three year deal, with $3M year 1, if beats good teams or win in playoffs, double his salary year 2 and if he does it again during 2nd year, then double it again. something like that would allow the skins to protect the bank and bring in the much needed top players and retain and show the top players they already have how much they “want” them financially, like a Jordan Reed. Kirk was awful without Jordan Reed and D Jax, lets remember that. And even then he could not beat the better teams. So, if you pay Kirk all the money, you would expect him to be more like a Brady.

  11. rtcwon - Jan 24, 2016 at 5:21 PM

    This off season is a great opportunity to lock up not just Cousins but ALL of the offense core. Why would you under cut your investment in a QB by removing any of his targets or OL? Let’s build not subtract. So I not only sign Kirk and Reed long term now, I also extend DJax & Garcon. Follow along as a I give example contracts to do so.

    First let’s review what I consider to be givens. Hatcher’s retirement (+$6.5M with June designation) RGIII (+$16M) Roberts (+$3M) & Goldson (+$8M) releases and tenders to the restricted FAs Ihenacho, Way, Thompson and both Comptons. (I didn’t look up their values set by CBA but I’ll ballpark -$6M, I don’t think Tom makes the team but he’ll be tendered, no reason not to as these guys aren’t free, either sign or don’t play football)

    I know Rich used the middle of the 2016 estimate for his cap post but the actual number has always come in greater than the high number so I always use the high number estimate. With $6M roll over and the above $27.5M net savings, that leaves $47M under to play with. (I know I’ve rounded and the actual number could be +/- a few million but this is just an exercise)

    Here are example deals and the deals they are based off for reference, rough estimates, don’t nick pick a few million here and there.

    Kirk (Kaep & Newton based) – 7yr $141M $40M fully guaranteed, $72M “Kaep” guaranteed, cap hits of $13, 15, 18, 22, 24, 25, 25M

    Reed (Julius Thomas exact deal) – 5yr $46M $24M guaranteed, cap hits of $10.3, 7.3, 8.3, 9.3, 10.3M

    DJax & Garcon extensions (Decker like money) – 3yr $18M $10.5M guaranteed, cap hits of $7, 6.75, 6.75M

    This leaves $22M left for FA this year and remaining needs of S, NT, RB, QB2, CB3 and possible upgrades of Lauvao, Kory, Hall & Riley. I keep these four guys for one more year with the possible exception of getting Goldson back cheaper than Hall as the 4th S, locker room vet guy and a C upgrade like Jones or Unger, if cap causality. Mack likely will be too expensive if he opts out.

    The offensive core would all be under contract at least thru 2018 with only $122M on the books for 2017, that’s about $40M under the cap (minus this year’s FAs second year cap hits) plus another $14M in savings moving on from the four above. Big Swaggy & Galette (I’m assuming he gets another one year minimum deal this year) as the only FA starters to re-sign and Moses due for his extension.

    For those that don’t trust Kirk or Reed, here are the outs. For Reed, remove the second year and partial third year guarantee (making it $15M guaranteed) and get out after 2016 with only $4.8M dead in ’17 or use June designation for $1.2M dead in ’17 & $3.6M dead in ’18. If Kirk struggles next year and loses the starting job in ’17, he’ll be a $15M back up with $12M dead in ’18 or $4M dead in ’18 & $8M dead in ’19 with the June split. That may seem like a lot of dead money to some but finding another QB is the much harder task than managing $12M in dead money.

    • Thetruthis - Jan 24, 2016 at 5:32 PM

      What??? Kirk, Salary based on Kaep and Newton!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are dumb and rocks!!! i can tell you are not very wealthy. Because you give your money away too easily. Those are just not wise financial moves. And any wrong contract you get into is going to cost the team by the talent they may need that they are not going to be able to sign. You will stay with a young team. You are not going to win the Super Bowl with a young rookie team. You need veteran beasts to make that happen.

      I can’t get over Kirk! Kaep and Newton based. Kaep and Newton based. Kirk doesn’t even belong in the same sentence. More like Kirk, Hoyer first year based.

      • rtcwon - Jan 24, 2016 at 8:53 PM

        You don’t need to make it personal but my money is given away too easily to pay for your housing, food & healthcare. But we are talking about Dan’s money here.

        I understand there are doubts about Kirk and even Reed, which is why I explained the possible outs. In case your Kirk hate didn’t allow you to get there, here they are again:

        “If Kirk struggles next year and loses the starting job in ’17, he’ll be a $15M back up with $12M dead in ’18 or $4M dead in ’18 & $8M dead in ’19 with the June split. That may seem like a lot of dead money to some but finding another QB is the much harder task than managing $12M in dead money.”

    • John - Jan 24, 2016 at 10:31 PM

      Keeping Garcon is going to be a challenge. He won’t go for a paycut but they need him to. He has slowed down among other things. There are other guys out there who can do what he did the last couple of years.

      Jackson cold get a lower base but more years and incentives to make him happy.

      Still need that big, fast receiver. Someone along the lines of Green, Jones, Bryant, Megatron. We could use one of those and a running back who can make 2-3 cuts at a time like Parker down in Atlanta.

      • rtcwon - Jan 25, 2016 at 12:50 PM

        A paycut isn’t the only way to lower his cap number. The extension I lay out above lowers his cap number by $3M but gives him a $2.5M raise this year and a chance at $3.75M the next two years. Same with DJax, $2.5M raise lowers his cap hit by $2M.

        Those types of receivers don’t grow on trees and none are available this year.
        The RBs in Atlanta are Freeman & Coleman, I think you mean one of them.

        The price for Reed just went up with the Ertz deal.

        • John - Jan 25, 2016 at 5:29 PM

          A runner like the one that torched the Skins in the Atlanta game for 150 yards, Freeman?

  12. John - Jan 24, 2016 at 9:12 PM

    Pay Reed as he deserves it. Don’t want a weapon like that to hold out or pought all season or just not put out the effort.

    Galette should be an easy signing. He all ready gave up his negotiating leverage with the Skins tattoo and some of the things he said.

    Kirk should also get the big bucks for what he has done this year.

    Resign Pot Roast. He won’t cost a ton. Having him around will make Baker play hard. They still need a guy up front who will blow up plays ala JJ Watt.

    Still need a big, fast WR on offense as well as a running back with some moves. I did the WR out of Auburn who made all those big plays intriguing. Good receiver and returns kicks as well.

  13. John - Jan 24, 2016 at 9:27 PM

    Regarding Kerrigan, he’s a keeper. They signed him earlier vs. Having to franchise him like Orakpo. Many times in the past Kerrigan has not had a solid rusher opposite him. Sure he had Orakpo but most of the time he had a busted PRC on IR. Kerrigan has been very durable and makes more than sacks (tips for TDs come to mind).

    When I think of OLB combos, I think of Taylor and Banks, Green and Lloyd, Houston and Hali among others.

    For those that think this team should go back to a 4-3, we don’t have the right personnel at this point.

  14. timwillhide - Jan 25, 2016 at 8:20 PM

    Pay the man with incentives for games played.
    You shouldn’t give up on a player with that much talent because of injuries. Injuries happen. Archives

Follow Us On Twitter