Skip to content

Need to Know: Redskins may have to wait to extend Reed after tagging Cousins

Mar 2, 2016, 5:55 AM EDT


Here is what you need to know on this Wednesday, March 2, seven days before the start of NFL free agency.

Cousins tag will make Reed extension harder to get done

Technically, the Redskins are over the NFL salary cap after officially placing the franchise tag on quarterback Kirk Cousins. The quarterback tag cap charge puts them over by $6.55 million.

It’s all perfectly legal; they will be in the good graces of Rodger Goodell and John Mara by the time the league years starts on March 9. But Cousins’ cap hit of $19.95 million, or 12.8 percent of the salary cap, will make it difficult to make some moves in free agency and make it hard to hold on to some players the team may want to keep.

One current player who is not a free agent who might be in line for a new contract is tight end Jordan Reed. He helped make Cousins that $20 million this year by leading the team in receptions, receiving yards, and touchdown receptions in 2015. Reed is in the last year of his rookie contract and will make $1.6 million in 2016.

The team would like to sign him to an extension but that is something that will have to go on the back burner while they attend to some more immediate business.

This doesn’t mean that an extension for Reed can’t get done at some point before the season starts. But it probably means that Cousins will have to get an extension first.

The Redskins and Cousins will continue to negotiate a deal that would supersede the franchise tag contract. Usually such deals have a relative low first-year cap hit. That could create room for the Redskins to squeeze in an extension for Reed.

Here is how it could play out. The Redskins go into the summer with a few million dollars of cap room, just enough to get through the season accounting for players on injured reserve and paying practice squad players. Cousins and the Redskins negotiate right up until the July 15 deadline and come up with a five-year deal that averages $18 million per year. Since the salary cap is going to rise over the course of the contract it is structure to have a relatively low first-year cap hit of $14 million.

That takes $6 million off of the cap. In mid July there are no free agents worth pursuing so the best thing to do is use it to take care of their own. They would start serious negotiations with Reed’s agent and just before the regular season they sign him to a four-year extension worth about $10 million per year, using some of that recently created $6 million to help pay for it.

It will be important for the Redskins at least to get either Cousins or Reed to agree to a long-term deal. They don’t want to get into a situation in 2017 where both Cousins and Reed are free agents. They would only be able to franchise tag one of them and the two players need each other to be successful.


—The Redskins last played a game 52 days ago. It will be about 193 days until they play another one.

Days until: NFL free agency starts 7; Redskins offseason workouts start 47; 2016 NFL draft 57

In case you missed it

  1. colmac69 - Mar 2, 2016 at 6:24 AM

    Would b very interesting scenario if both cousins and reed are free agents nxt yr for sure…..

    One thing I think has got lost in all this is what if cousins performance falls off a bit but the running game explodes and defense gets lot better which in turn leads to say 11 wins for example……

    Team improves by say 2 wins but cousins numbers fall to say 3100 yrds with 20 tds and 15 ints…..might b case nxt yr then he gets long term deal not as big as he maybe could got this yr……

    Or he could get injured and miss entire season

    Or he plays better than this yr and makes a bundle

    Lot of scenarios which is why I think it best just to let whole thing play out and not worry what may or not happen

    • abanig - Mar 2, 2016 at 6:51 AM

      Lot of “ifs” in that sentence.

      Hey what if we actually have a running game and a defense next year and we win a playoff game, two, three or even the whole damn thing?

      Let’s remember that we had ZERO running game last year and our D was below average. I don’t care who your QB is, you aren’t going far if the only thing that’s carrying your team is your Qbs right arm.

      • colmac69 - Mar 2, 2016 at 8:09 AM

        Your correct….a lot of ifs and maybes….just trying to make point that there is a number things which could happen so everyone should just chill out and let it play out…

        I believe they will get Ltd done before July 14….I think he only going to get better and if run game and defense gets better in the process then fantastic…

      • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 2, 2016 at 12:08 PM

        Zero running game my butt! There was a running game early in the season which included an early #1 ranking albeit temporary. Then a starting guard went down and Matt had a few key fumbles. They also lacked a deep threat the first half of the season. The passing game was also not stretching the field for a good part of the season. The offensive scheme is part of the reason there was a lack of running game.

        • bangkokben - Mar 2, 2016 at 12:12 PM

          The offensive scheme is the only reason the Redskins WERE #1 in the NFL after week 2. It was NOT the reason it collapsed. Losing Lauvao hurt, then Lichtensteiger and Jackson hurt some as well.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 2, 2016 at 12:33 PM

          I have Gruden’s history to prove otherwise while you have squat to prove it isn’t the scheme. When you have a combination of poor execution blocking and running, it’s a collective issue that easily puts into question the overall execution. Maybe the young right side will get better but even a normally consistent left side behind TW was yielding little results. Sure everyone wants to blame the TEs. It might help by putting to bed that predictable three TE blocking alignment. It worked a few times and then defenses starting to run right through it.

        • bangkokben - Mar 2, 2016 at 2:48 PM

          The Redskins rushed the ball 37 times each of the first two games. They threw 32 times against and 29 times against the Rams. Those are HISTORICAL facts.

        • John - Mar 2, 2016 at 6:29 PM

          So your saying, what I’ve said all along. The scheme is just fine, it’s just that there was no deep threat and people making the wrong blocks, etc. Let’s not forget the inexperienced rookie running back, learning on the job and the vet who either forgot how to run or gave up.

          In the line’s defense, there were plenty of times where the way was clear but Alfred looked as if he had no clue what he was doing. Just check the Cooley film breakdowns.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 3, 2016 at 8:55 AM

          No offense John but before you even starting posting here on a common basis during this season, I was commenting, while critical of Cousins performance, that Cousins was affected by an offensive scheme that doesn’t stretch the field and while noting not having Jackson impacted a deep threat, it didn’t excuse the scheme for playing small ball.

          This is what eventually resulted in the running game dropping off. Defenses could play up and focus on stopping the short pass and run game. There were many cover 1 schemes by the opponents defense where the safety was still playing up pretty tight (i.e. no expectation on the deep route). I watched many NFL replays from the coaches angle where you not only see the lack of respect for any deep pass but so many routes by the Redskins were bunched routes of two receivers yards from each other that looked like it would result in a scissor route but instead both ran the exact same patter. It would leave 3 defenders on top of two wide outs. Now you’d think they use that as a decoy and throw away from it? No, Cousins would attempt the pass to one of two resulting in either an incompletion or a quick catch and tackle. I just think that’s one example of poor passing schemes the teams run. Now that just my opinion on this route but I don’t like it just like I hate that 3 TE blocking formation on one side that had some success early but was just a mess to watch later in the season.

        • John - Mar 3, 2016 at 2:21 PM

          When you trot out Garcon, who has lost a step, Roberts who drops a fair amount of passes and Grant who lacks speed, your not going to get very deep, unless you run 2 out in max protect. The catch is then problematic.

          The Cooley film breakdown provides the same angles, with marks showing the lanes for Alfred and moves as if he has no clue in regards to the 3 tight end thing, it worked when the 3 TEs had worked together early on when the 3 blockers were all healthy. Later they lost Carrier and Reed was getting dinged for holding and the other one was cut. So much for continuity…

        • abanig - Mar 7, 2016 at 9:45 AM

          Yeah, 2 weeks.

  2. abanig - Mar 2, 2016 at 6:47 AM

    Not if they get a long term deal done before training camp.

  3. JOHNNY B - Mar 2, 2016 at 6:55 AM

    I agree that we need to get Cousins off the tag and signed to a long term deal. With the Bradford contract at 18 mil. per year I think Cousins will want more like 18.5 to 19. So with that in mind and our own players we need to resign the money will definitely need to be found somewhere else. Either we get Garson and Dejax to restructure or we will lose 1 of them. Reeds deal will be done before before training camp but there might be some casualties.

    • Thetruthis - Mar 2, 2016 at 1:05 PM

      cousins might want. cousins might want. Cousins does not have the body of work that bradford has. If I was reed, i would not give up anything. In fact, if you can pay Kirk all that money and he was absolutely nothing of note without meeeeee. Then I would insist on getting paid. What is kirk going to do without reed???? Kirk is NOT big ben.

      • bangkokben - Mar 2, 2016 at 3:05 PM

        “Cousins does not have the body of work”

        Exactly. He doesn’t have the injury or surgery history as dear old Sam.

  4. waqgman1 - Mar 2, 2016 at 7:41 AM

    I don’t understand where you’re coming up with your cap numbers. You’ more than 5 million lower than what other sites are reporting. I don’t believe you ever counted the more than 5 million of carry over of unused cap space from last year.

    • Sam - Mar 2, 2016 at 8:38 AM

      John Keim retracted his report that the team had $18m in cap room. Rich’s numbers are correct.

    • Rich Tandler - Mar 2, 2016 at 8:40 AM

      Yes, I did count the rollover money. I don’t know who is saying otherwise but I have them just about $6 million under.

  5. bangkokben - Mar 2, 2016 at 9:06 AM

    Reed was never going to get extended until the eve of training camp – whether a long-term deal was made yesterday or in July. This has been the plan all along. If not Cousins, they can see if they have adequate replacements for Lichtensteiger, Lauavao, or Culliver on the roster by July – just like they did with Porter and Chester last year. Andre Roberts is still on the team for some reason. Cousins’ deal will get done and maybe Bradford’s deal moves the needle a bit. There’s the floor. The Fitzpatrick and Osweiler deals should be under that but who knows. Maybe a Luck extension creates a clear ceiling although Luck’s people may be waiting for Cousins’ deal to raise the floor for their client. Bottom line, a deal will get done, the Redskins will sign the free agents they want and pick at least eight draft picks.

    • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 2, 2016 at 12:26 PM

      I wouldn’t be so confident that a deal with get done at least not in time to sign quality FAs. The fact is as of right now the deal limits what the Redskins will do in free agency. They’ll get more relief by releasing RG3 and some other overpaid under performing vets like Roberts. In the end, they will be short probably 5 million than they’d like in signing key free agents. It’s not a gripe but just a plain hard fact.

      • bangkokben - Mar 2, 2016 at 2:27 PM

        A plain hard fact is that McCloughan never intended on making a splash in free agency. Sure, they’re limited ($3M-$5M) but who specifically will they lose? They can make enough cuts and restructures to give them $25M outside of Cousins. So they needed $30M to make all the moves they wanted? With a GM that doesn’t plan to overpay in FA and pool with very little impact guys under 29? I just don’t see the limitations.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 2, 2016 at 4:11 PM

          “A plain hard fact is that McCloughan never intended on making a splash in free agency.’
          So you know the GM’s detail plans for free agency? After all, you must for it to be a plan hard fact.

          Who gets released the team may prefer not to let go from the roster, or who in free agency the team may opt out on due to less cap space may never be known. It’s not like Scot is going ot publicly state “…well with Cousins forcing us to franchise tag him, we could do this or do that”. The point is the franchise tag will impact the options the Redskins have in free agency. Don’t come here and try to diminish the value of 3 to 5 million dollars. That’s the difference of maybe passing on Damon Harrison or making a sizable upgrade somewhere else on the roster. The team didn’t wait until the last day to enforce the franchise tag Cousins because they were busy surfing Maui. They were hoping they could work out a long term deal with Cousins with less impact on the cap. It didn’t work out so there are limitations due to less then desirable cap space.

        • bangkokben - Mar 2, 2016 at 4:32 PM

          I’m not disputing the possibility of a lack of flexibility ($5 million worth) but McCloughan in his one year here and even in his other stints didn’t go bonkers in Free Agency. You’re right. We’ll never know IF they miss out on anyone. But what we do know is this:

          1. His free agency track record.
          2. His philosophy of building through the draft.
          3. The Redskins available cash compared to other teams (with or without the tag.) There are nine teams (all coming off losing records) with AT LEAST $45 MILLION dollars in cap space right now.

          These facts all point to the Redskins NOT being big players in free agency. It is logical to extrapolate that they will not be competing for the Damon Harrisons of this free agency period. There may be a Jeron Johnson type guy that will get signed but expecting any of the fan’s wish list as being a target, I don’t think ever was an option.

        • Trey Gregory - Mar 3, 2016 at 2:55 AM

          My only worries are signing Galette (he’s going to want 5-8 mil), maybe Knighton if we have no other plan there, and getting a deal done for Reed now so he doesn’t hit the market next year. If those things get taken care of, I say we’re set. And there certainly are a few guys we could release, not miss, and clear room for those contracts.

        • bangkokben - Mar 3, 2016 at 7:26 AM

          Let me take those issues in order:
          1. Galette – the Redskins have the right to first refusal. That was put in last year’s contract. So basically, Galette has to wait ’til the Redskins get around to him since most teams realize they will be doing the Redskins’ bidding. If a team does want him for $8M, the ‘skins will make the necessary cuts (if not already.) This scenario LIKELY means that Galette will get signed at the end of March.

          2. I believe they have moved on from Knighton and his replacement will be drafted or someone like Jaye Howard from Kansas City.

          3. Once a long-term deal with Cousins is settled on, money will be freed up to sign Reed – if this is done in July. With Cousins signing the deal (now he can only negotiate with the Redskins) the deal may get done sooner. If so, then there are Lichtensteiger and Lauvao who may become expendable by July IF Long can play center and Kouandjio makes a year two jump similarly to Morgan Moses. Those are big IFs but also within the realm of team expectations and they will be known issues by the first week of camp if not sooner.

        • Trey Gregory - Mar 4, 2016 at 3:05 AM

          I’m well aware of all those things. I was just saying that those are really the only players we currently have that I’m worried about signing with the cap space. We can’t fix all of our issues this offseason. But Galette and Reed, those are two very, very good players that could help this team for years.

          With Galette and the right of first refusal. I could be wrong, but I think they only have 7 days to counter. So, say he goes and finds a deal on March 10th, we wouldn’t have until Cousins strikes a deal in July to figure out if we can afford him. That’s what I worry about.

          I think we both know why I want Reed signed now. Don’t want to risk him hitting FA and it will probably be cheaper in the long run.

          I know how you feel about Knighton. I disagree, and that’s fine. I just want to know NT is taken care of. That’s really my only concern. The 3-4 doesn’t work right without one. If we end up drafting a 0 technique who can start in the draft (you know I’m obsessed with Billings) then I’ll be perfectly happy to let Knighton walk. Although I would prefer to get Knighton on a cheaper deal to 1) have depth and not force our rookie to start if he’s not ready or to protect against injury and 2) because Knighton and Billings as our DTs in our 4 man front would be amazing. It’s the kind of thing I dream about.

          To my knowledge, Knighton has been in a 2 gap scheme his whole career. I think he struggled figuring out Barry’s scheme. Which sounds like a cop out, but I believe that. I also don’t think he was nearly as bad as some people think. He played decent football early, and I think he really came on late. It’s hard to evaluate a NT with stats. Their position doesn’t lend itself to that. Plus, teams should run away from the man mountain.

          Anyway, those are my thoughts. But I won’t shed a tear if we draft a big boy in the first round and move on. Just don’t think we can fill all the gaps in the draft so I wouldn’t mind keeping the pieces we have.

        • bangkokben - Mar 4, 2016 at 7:45 AM

          My main point (which I failed to make) on the three players is that none of them are urgent. Reed won’t hit FA until March 2017, Knighton was out there a while last year – coming off two good years – before the Redskins signed him. So considering his season and age, he’s likely to be available if and when the Redskins need to sign him. Lastly, teams don’t like doing other team’s bidding which should give the Redskins time on Galette. He apparently wants a one-year $6-$7M deal with incentives so he can cash in next year. The Redskins want him but have other fish to fry first. Galette basically has to wait until the Redskins get to him or force a team to make it urgent. The Redskins still haven’t release the players they plan to release. March 9 will be an interesting day.

  6. garg8050 - Mar 2, 2016 at 9:09 AM

    I’m still holding out hope that a deal gets done during free agency, or even before the start of free agency, so that the team has a more definite idea on how much money they have to spend, and how much they have to extend players, etc. With Bradford’s deal done, they should have a pretty good idea where Cousins long term deal should come in.

  7. bk70 - Mar 2, 2016 at 9:21 AM

    How long before we have a QB officially on the roster?
    Kirk hasn’t signed yet.
    Robert will be gone before 4 PM 9 March.
    Colt may choose another team.

    • bangkokben - Mar 2, 2016 at 10:07 AM

      For cap purposes, both Cousins and Griffin are on the roster counting more than $36M against the cap. Griff will come off sometime before 4PM March 9 and Cousins will remain there. Free agency will begin at 4PM on March 9th. Teams can’t have workouts until April 18 and can’t start throwing the ball until a couple of weeks later, which is right after the draft, if there are OTAs scheduled. So the team has two months to get a QB. Who will it be? Probably Cousins. After the first week of free agency, the market will be set. The Redskins will likely announce the long-term deal right around the draft getting Kirk in time to “maximize” the off season or he signs the tender by then.

      • Mr.moneylover - Mar 2, 2016 at 11:20 AM

        Kirk cousins is expected to sign his franchise tag soon…like I said kirk cousins agent is happy with getting 20 mill this season and can call off talks after kirk cousins sign the franchise tag until after the season…I agree with Adam caplen on nfl insiders when he said it doesn’t make sense to pay a guy that much it would’ve made more sense to see what his value was on the market witch is probably 15 to 16 mill but instead they rather pay him 20 mill and let his value go up even more if he plays well next season

        • bangkokben - Mar 2, 2016 at 11:25 AM

          He’ll wait at least two weeks to sign the tag. Bradford already set the floor for him. It’s up to the Redskins to determine how much guaranteed money they want to pay him.

        • Thetruthis - Mar 2, 2016 at 1:13 PM

          The skins are NOT big ballers. They play the average game. You will not win in this league if you follow what the average (most) of the people are doing. Follow what the enduring winners are doing and then the skins will have a chance at enduring success. These Kirk cousins type deals can derail a team quicker than anything. It can cause bad locker rooms, etc. Because it puts a lot of pressure on cousins to perform. They were tolerant of this early season turnover machine mess when he made $700mil. What do you think will happen if or when he goes through a space of tough times next year no matter who the skins play. The pressure on the skins and kirk is soooooo high to perform next year they have little room for any missteps. That is when you will see these same people on this site complaining about the decisions made and saying what should have happened. Some of the most brilliant people that ever lived in the world said in essence “if everybody is doing something, then it is probably the best decision to do the exact opposite” I guess that kind of mean most people don’t know what they are doing they are just following the crowd.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 2, 2016 at 2:07 PM

          “if everybody is doing something, then it is probably the best decision to do the exact opposite”
          hmmmm! I think they are now called terrorist.

          There is a difference between thinking outside the box and outside of your mind. Just letting Cousins go and relying on Colt McCoy falls on the latter form of thinking.

          Regardless of Cousins performance the franchise tag was the best choice of a bad scenario for the organization. If Cousins builds off his last nine games in 2016 then the team knows they have a franchise player deserving of a major contract. If Cousins flops then the team wasn’t stuck with a long term contract with a ton of guaranteed money. The only cost would come out 2016. If Cousins plateaus into mediocrity then they can work out a substantial less contract or start looking elsewhere for a solution at QB.

        • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 2, 2016 at 7:17 PM

          Money lover I’m with you on the 15-16M figure but I don’t think that’s what the market would’ve dictated.I know because the market is shallow enough that Kirk WAS GOING TO GET PAID. There are too many DESPERATE teams with REAL cap room that would LOVE to pay Kirk out of pocket and save those high draft picks, they would’ve used to draft a QB, on building around him. Reports say the Skins’ offers to Kirk were in the 16M range. Basically white out RGIII’s name on the check and give it to Kirk. Bradford getting 18M will drive up the price but I really don’t think it should top 18-18.5/year. I think the 16M was fair but I concede we wouldn’t have been able to keep him at that number. Consider the fact that this contract is almost solely based on his potential. Yeah he stepped in, in a pinch, for 3Sticks and his first pass was a TD to Santana Moss. When asked to step in end of last year he was benched due to inconsistencies for Colt, who did a serviceable job in all the times he’s gotten a start. I think Scot is looking at this like WWJerryAngeloDo? He clearly doesn’t want risk being tied to the next Rex Grossman or Kyle Orton for the next 5 years so erring on the side of caution getting paid 2 mil less than Bradford with incentives to top SB’s salary if Cousins plays well sounded fair to me. Think about it, RGIII won ROY all the week to week NFC honors threw 5 INTS his first season and I want to say single digit INTs his next season. Granted he was injury prone but the $16M was offered to the guy WITH THE BODY OF WORK AND GREATER UPSIDE. Yes the tag was 4M more but if Kirk assessed his priorities taking the team friendly deal would have been optimal for his future success. Say we don’t ink a deal by July and he goes out this year and excels again? Pushes the number up. Now in 2017 since we overspent 4M budgeted for this position AND we have to scrape up money to resign Cousins long term, Reed long term, Pick a receiver (Jackson or Garcon) and sign one of them big money for 2-3 years.

  8. renhoekk2 - Mar 2, 2016 at 9:57 AM

    This doesn’t bode well for Garcon or Jackson. There are players in the draft or even FA that can do what they do. There are no Jordan Reeds out there. Looking for a less expensive Garcon or Jackson and letting one of them go will get a Reed contract done. I haven’t seen a mock draft that has Will Fuller drafted before 21. Most have him going 24 to CIN. He’s already being compared to Jackson. Everyone wants them to draft replacement WR’s for next season. Why not start this season? Or Travis Benjamin from CLE will be hitting FA if you want to replace DJax and go defense in the draft I doubt he’s getting $10M/yr from anyone.

    • bangkokben - Mar 2, 2016 at 10:18 AM

      There is no urgency to get Reed done before the draft or free agency. AND NO, there is no one in the draft or FA that can do what Jackson and Garcon do right now for half the price. Roberts and Riley aren’t starters and save you more net than either receiver. There is also restructuring Hatcher and/or Goldson. Then there is the possible replacement of Lichtensteiger, Lauvao, or Culliver by draft picks or younger cheaper guys on the roster – although I say replacing Culliver is equally unlikely to replacing Jackson or Garcon. You don’t pay $20M to a QB and then take one of his weapons away.

      • renhoekk2 - Mar 2, 2016 at 10:39 AM

        They have to replace Garcon and Jackson next year. Both are going to want big money to stick around if you are thinking of extending them for a few more years. They can’t afford to do that. The Skins are not competing for a Super Bowl this coming season. If and when they get to that point Jackson and Garcon are not going to be on the team. I don’t understand the thinking that they are irreplaceable for a 9-7 team with a lot to do before they are contenders. Who are going to be the starting WR’s next season? Grant and Ross? They’ll still be paying Cousins a lot of money next year. Are they never going to let Garcon and Jackson leave? You can’t build a team with the the thinking “we’re paying our QB big money so we need to keep paying big money to keep both his WR’s around”. It’s not just Reed. They need to resign Baker, and hopefully Galette also. Where is that money coming from?

        • Mr.moneylover - Mar 2, 2016 at 10:56 AM

          Exactly… Next year keeping cousins will be a cap killer if he plays well…but that’s why they drafting a QB this year so if they can’t retain kirk cousins next year we will already have a QB ready to go….this year by giving kirk cousins a franchise tag it hurt things in free agency

        • bangkokben - Mar 2, 2016 at 11:15 AM

          “The Skins are not competing for a Super Bowl this coming season.” First of all, that is just loser talk. You can’t pick your window to compete. Did YOU foresee 2012 or 2015? No. Not with that type of mentality. Did anyone foresee the Panthers 2015 after winning the division at 7-9 and losing their top wide out? No. So, there are plenty of possibilities that the Redskins’ 2016 can take IF thing break right for them.

          Secondly, you’ve got a bunch of assumptions that aren’t necessarily on point. “Both are going to want big money to stick around..” So what? They’re both at the precipice of their career’s and moving forward it’s all downhill. How fast? Who knows, but there is no NEED to sell short. Let the season play out. BECAUSE you can afford to and then determine which one to keep if any. As for a 9-7 team, did you see what the team was before Jackson came back? 2-4. 7-3 in the last ten games. That’s a huge difference across a whole season and there is NO WAY Will Fuller makes that kind of impact. Did he run at the combine?

          Drafting a receiver this year protects you for next year. That rookie isn’t going to be able to replace production immediately. The FA class of receivers, both this year and next is slim too. The best solution is likely to extend one of the receivers a couple of years but that is not likely possible as both can look ahead and see which receivers are likely to be available next year and anticipate a good payday with a good season.

      • Mr.moneylover - Mar 2, 2016 at 10:45 AM

        Cutting Andre Roberts and perry Riley will some cap space…cutting Jason hatcher before the new league year will save redskins 8 mill…so they got options I just rather for the redskins to a long term flexible deal done so we can get better around him…by kirk cousins getting the franchise tag I think they have players or a player in mind they gonna cut and I’m not just talking about rg3 either

        • renhoekk2 - Mar 2, 2016 at 11:11 AM

          If Jackson and Garcon were not both 30yrs old and in the last years of their contracts and making $10m each, I would not be talking about replacing them. They can’t extend both of them for next year. You’ll be talking about paying your QB around $20M, your TE $10M your WR 1 $10M and your WR2 $10M. That’s $50M tied up in your passing game. What team does that and has any type of extended success? If you are s Super Bowl type team and you want to make a run at it maybe that makes sense. When you are a 9-7 team with a lot of roster fixing to do it doesn’t make sense. So if the thinking is you need to replace at least one of them next seson, what is the problem with doing it now?

        • bangkokben - Mar 2, 2016 at 11:22 AM


          You’re misguided on those figures. All of their cap numbers may AVERAGE those figures but won’t actually hit at those figures. At the beginning of the contract it will be much lower and the cap will continue to rise with the increase of each hit – at the same rate. What you’re more likely looking at is 22-25% of the cap over the next three years and ONLY IF they extend both receivers.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 2, 2016 at 12:57 PM

          Neither WR is an issue right now. Next season probably only one of two will be resigned. Once Jackson loses a step he will become very expendable and affordable. Does his speed regress next season? No one knows and Garcon has already started to regress on his speed. That’s why he is so determined not to renegotiate this years salary. It’s probably his last time for a huge pay year. Garcon will mostly likely be a cheaper sign cap wise next season. Jackson depends on his big play ability if it is still there then he’ll be expensive if not then he may not even be worth resigning. So I see it highly unlikely that both will be very expensive to sign as plus 30 year old wide outs. As Bang stated and I agree, the WR position is a weak draft to start now in investing in a #1 future WR. Will Fuller is probably the only good bet as a starting #1 NFL WR. However, why invest in a high draft pick on him now when we don’t need one at WR and instead invest the high picks in areas of more need.

        • renhoekk2 - Mar 2, 2016 at 3:53 PM

          Rich has made the point a thousand times, and I’ve heard others say it as well. The worst time to draft a player at a particular position is when you need to. It leads to mistakes in the draft. If they wait until both Garcon and Jackson are either gone or have nothing left in the tank before they go out find replacements, it will be too late. WR and CB are the two positions that you can’t get away with drafting guys later in the draft. Odds of finding a good WR go down drastically every round, much more than other positions. There was a great piece done on Grantland about that. Quality of prospects at each position in each round of the draft. If you don’t pick a WR or CB in the first two rounds your chances of getting a very good one drop off severely. So those with the thinking we’ll pick one up in the 4th or 5th rd and get him ready for next season, good luck with that. For every Richard Sherman and Kenny Stills there 100 Rod Issacs and Tavarres Kings.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 2, 2016 at 4:38 PM

          So you are willing to draft a wide out over a Jarren Reed, Sheldon Rankins, or Andrew Billings? The team is staring down a historically deep draft at D-line and you want to pick a WR out of a historically slow and uninspired draft group?

          If we are discussing Amari Cooper than I may see your point but I don’t see any WR that is close to that caliber in this draft and especially by the time the 21st pick arrives. I’d rather see the team trade up to get Jalen Ramsey then take a gamble on any WR in this year draft as the 1st pick.

    • Mr.moneylover - Mar 2, 2016 at 11:09 AM

      I love will fuller watched every game he played in at Notre Dame but he’s no desean Jackson questionable hands at times…now josh doctson is a beast…but if you draft a WR what about the D-line???? And junior gallette ???? And CB…franchise tag kirk cousins hurts the redskins this year that’s for sure…I was thinking they gonna address WR in free agency and then turn they attention to draft DL and CB…junior gallete not under contract or mason foster

      • renhoekk2 - Mar 2, 2016 at 11:22 AM

        I’m not saying he’s as good as DJax right now. Not many rookies are as good as vet guys who have been to Pro Bowls. I’m saying he’s that type of player that stretch the field and make the big play. A lot of fast WR’s coming out of college are glorified track guys. Fuller is better than that. He’s a legit WR that can run good routes. He’s a young guy that can grow with Cousins over the next few seasons.

      • bangkokben - Mar 2, 2016 at 11:28 AM

        The Redskins have the right of first refusal on Galette and Foster won’t break the bank. He’ll be around $2M-$3M a year – tops. Still make money by cutting Riley and signing Foster. Foster was out there last year signed by the Bears and cut before the season. Very few teams will rethink their position on him.

  9. Mr.moneylover - Mar 2, 2016 at 10:38 AM

    Ppl can stop kirk cousins…nobody show they can stop Jordan reed…I’ll rather get a deal done with Jordan reed before kirk cousins…Jordan reed show how important he is and his value to the team…kirk cousins still a question mark after the one average season he had…if kirk cousins don’t play well next season the rest of the players will go down with the ship and redskins will likely have this year rookie QB starting next year…If kirk cousins play well then he can ask for over 20 mill per year witch will eat our salary cap for years….kirk cousins not the guy who can take a bad or average team to the playoffs he needs guys around him to play at a high level….now ask this question how can redskins get better around him when he’s gonna eat a lot of the salary cap…if junior galette sign back with the redskins and have a big year how the hell we gonna pay that man to stay with the team along with djax or p.garcon or Jordan reed…kirk cousins need to think like Andy dolten and say I’m nothing without those guys so I’ll settle for 15 to 16 mill per year…kirk cousins expecting to sign the franchise tag soon he’s happy with getting 20 mill this year and he feels confident he can get better

  10. Mr.moneylover - Mar 2, 2016 at 10:50 AM

    In scot m. Interview he sounded like he gonna go after players in free agency so something is bound to happen other then rg3 getting cut this off-season…and out of the wide receivers he was excited about he left Andre Roberts out…he even gave rashad Ross some praise

    • colmac69 - Mar 2, 2016 at 1:00 PM

      The gm has already stated they won’t b big players in free agency so wouldn’t xpect flashy signing

      Addressing wide receiver u could certainly see that happening. …although garcon and jackson b on team for this season u could certainly see both leave nxt yr so one would assume they b looking to address the situation…..

      How u can say cousins had average season is not even laughable….and don’t come on and quote me a whole bunch stats like yac or ave yrd per throw……in grand scheme of things they irrelevant only gd for a whole different argument…….cousins and passing game carried team over last 8 games…..cousins moved offense on a consistent basis and overcame the issues he was quite rightly criticised for……even his doubters in the media and on various sites (of which there was a lot) were giving him praise for the season he had

      Now question is can he show that it wasn’t a one off season….can he play like the last 10 games or so consistently?ball is in his court so to speak… he worth paying nearly 20 mill prob not but you look at deal Bradford just signed for and it gives you a very gd idea how the market for qbs work……that’s just way it is I’m afraid

      Lastly the skins don’t need cousins to carry team to playoffs and beyond….better running game….better defense and similar play offensively will get job done…..

      Guys like dilfer (ave qb) but great defense won superbowl…brad johnson (decent qb) great defense won superbowl and even this yr broncos offensively weren’t gd but had great defense won superbowl……

  11. berniebernard666 - Mar 2, 2016 at 12:36 PM

    when they stop overpaying for players that produce only occasionally or are over the hill, then the Skins will be in good shape. D. Hall, Hatcher, Culliver, Garcon, D. Jax, Right there are 5 players who are not in the Pro Bowl and are taking up about 43 million in the CAP.

    5 players taking up more than a fourth of the Cap. Think about that. We are not talking about Earl Thomas, Fletcher Cox, Richard Sherman, Dez Bryant, and Julio Jones. We are paying the OTHER 5.

    • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 2, 2016 at 1:08 PM

      Culliver should be cut since he’ll most likely will be of little value to the team for much of the 2016 season. Culliver wasn’t exactly valued when he was playing without injury. I agree with cutting Hatcher and Culliver. However, I don’t see it being possible cutting both Culliver and Hall. Hall is a true Redskins and should stay since he can help the coverage team in many positions. Garcon and D Jax are needed to aid our new 20 million dollar QB.

    • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 2, 2016 at 7:30 PM

      ..And they’re all the best options at their positions on the team (Culliver got hurt but he was the consensus #1 prior to that). Aged veterans too good to lose their spot in camp but not good enough to NOT get outplayed on Sundays. Or as I like to call it FOOTBALL PURGATORY! That’s a drafting issue, this is a defensive draft so I’m hoping Scot will pick up some gems maybe.. a Josh Doctson rd 1 if he’s there?

      • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 3, 2016 at 10:03 AM

        “Culliver got hurt but he was the consensus #1 prior to that”

        I say if that is the best #1 cover man you have on the team then save some money can go elsewhere. Culliver was not performing like a #1 cover man. He’d probably would have been benched if the organization didn’t make the hasty gaffe of cutting Amerison who shined at Oakland.

        • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 3, 2016 at 5:00 PM

          I think the problem is like I said… the guys you named, our starters, are just good enough to not get beat out in camp but not good enough to NOT get outplayed on Sundays. I didn’t follow Amerson in Oakland but I believe you.. the kid showed promise here. I thought the move was hasty as well especially given the talent, and the age for that matter, at the position was/is our biggest weakness. The cut was supposed to be a “message”that we weren’t tolerating continued mistakes blah blah blah yet Compton is still here. How did Compton and Robinson NOT get beat out at camp? HOW SWAY? Not really seeing the benefit in cutting Culliver though, that’s just compounding issues. Part of the reason his production wasn’t as desired was because he’s learning the system then got hurt as he began to understand it. How are we getting better by bringing in another FA to take on that learning curve? Are there even any CB’s on the market that are better with a cheaper price tag? *laughingly* Do we even have money for camp bodies?

  12. ajbus1 - Mar 2, 2016 at 12:37 PM

    Lol, are we ever in the good graces of John Mara? He’s never in mine.

  13. kenlinkins - Mar 2, 2016 at 1:21 PM

    Rich: It seems that the new GM’s plan for 2016 back in March of 2015 was to option RG3 at QB for $16.1 million, resign both T. Williams and Kerrigan a little early at fair Cap numbers in 2015 to build the core of the roster and resign Reed in 2016 a year early in case RG3 proved to the man and avoid two key Free Agents in the same year.. With no first round picks to deal with until 2018 and the 2nd round pick from 2013 (Amerson) working his way toward the door and no other lower drafted players pushing for big money in 2016 or 2017 it seemed like a great plan to keep the Cap number is good order. I know I called the RG3 option a mistake at the time (and thru the year) it now looks like it was a pretty good idea if it had worked out. Do you think the GM will have many Cap Casualties this preseason? IMO there will be many as the GM build up roll over dollars for 2017.

  14. John - Mar 2, 2016 at 6:53 PM

    The tag gives both parties time to work up a long term deal that is good for both sides between now and training camp. Other QBs will sign, letting them know the ceiling and the floor.

    For those that think signing Kirk to the tag is to much, would you rather the team be stuck with a Brian Hoyer or Josh McCown or Brandon Weeden? Either you have a QB or you don’t. Either way you pay. Pay the price of having a QB or pay the price of not having on (more losing seasons, more going throufh coachrs and QBs, all because fans thiught we had to have the elusive franchise QB).

    Kirk is the franchises best opportunity to have a stable, steady starter for several years. They’ve not had that since Joe Theisman back in the Allen, Pardee, Gibbs era. That or don’t, wait and see and risk him tearing it up this year and pay $24 million next year. As my old Psych teacher, Mr. Lee used to say, “pay your money, take your choice”. Archives

Follow Us On Twitter