Skip to content

CSN: Were the Eagles eyeing Cousins?

Mar 7, 2016, 8:30 AM EDT


So was potential interest in Kirk Cousins by the Eagles the factor that clinched the Redskins’ decision to use the franchise tag on their quarterback? An interesting theory fleshed out here on

  1. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - Mar 7, 2016 at 9:00 AM

    I’m sure the Cousins tag convinced other teams that yes, you do have to offer bigger contracts than you hoped to the likes of Bradford and Osweiler.

    The NFL devalued the RB position and did the opposite at QB via their rule changes over the years. This is the result.

  2. bangkokben - Mar 7, 2016 at 9:15 AM

    I believe I had that.

  3. hail74 - Mar 7, 2016 at 10:49 AM

    Ian Rappaport said the day it happened on the NFL network” multiple teams including the jets,Eagles and Broncos were watching to see if cousins was going to be available”

    • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 7, 2016 at 5:50 PM

      I think the Eagles may have even been a team whispered about back when they were “talking,” or not talking, I guess about trading Cousins. The Redskins official position was that we weren’t trading them but I remember that being a thing for a quick second.

  4. Thetruthis - Mar 8, 2016 at 10:40 AM

    The eagles would have brought Nick Foles back before they would have paid that kind of money to cousins. Sorry, people.

    It is clear to see, even though the NFL has a lot of athletes running their business. They know something about football, they clearly know nothing about economics. Which is hurting their football play.

    If you spend x on one thing, it is not available for b.

    The real value is not in LOCKING up a potential player, the real value is in paying a proven player. That is the principle that is being missed and followed by too many teams today. The wasted money is absolutely embarrassing to the supposed game of football.

    Businesses understand this principle quite well. That is why they have entry level ranges and CEO salary.

    The value of a QB and RB varies based on the actual performance of the individual player. Not some average theory. No team has to pay anybody anything simply based on some average or supposed market value. they can chose to do it if the risk is not there. Its just a smarter way to operate.

    Grunk and brady take a pay cut to leave money on the table so they can be about winning the SB. That is what they care about most.

    Kirk gets the top dollar even though he has never beaten a winning team. The skins are already cutting players because of this decision. And they will not be able to bring in better talent in order to win big.

    Somehow, the skins are thinking this is a wise move? I say it is a very unwise move and it would be better to have 5 or 10 gronks on the team team for that money instead of 1 kirk cousins for the same money. He is not proven like a brady or so many other QB’s. There are going to have to be more restructures and pay cuts requested because of his salary this year and the pay cuts are going to be asked of the more productive, proven players. Hmmmmmmm, does this seem wise to you. If a player takes a pay cut and Kirk declines again, then there is going to be so much animosity towards him. If he had been reasonable, then they would have been more patience towards him. Again, economics is a principle that is not long broken before you have to pay. Archives

Follow Us On Twitter