Cherry 1,302 Posted January 26, 2017 What team has won a super bowl with a terrible defense? Rodgers and Brees both had good defenses when they won, Br*dy couldn't get his 4th until the Pats had a good defense again, Peyton was carried to both his rings by defense. Flacco and Ben had defenses when they won. No team has EVER won a super bowl with a straight up bad defense. At the very least you need to be able to force turnovers Ala the Saints when they won. I meant that as in it's not as easy to build defenses as one would make it out to be. The Saints and Colts have been wasting away Brees and Luck trying to build a team for them, or a defense for them. That was my point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seanbrock 1,684 Posted January 26, 2017 I think that just makes the case for not giving up known talent for draft picks. You're not guaranteed anything in the draft or in free agency. That's why the best teams in the league, when they do draft a good player, they re-sign them. That's why retaining your talent is so important in this league. Good players only change teams if they can't be re-signed or if they get injured or if they're just asshats in the locker room or get in some kind of trouble. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vin+ 3,121 Posted January 26, 2017 Speaking Thursday, free agent Kirk Cousins said he would be willing to play under the franchise tag for the second consecutive year in 2017. In other words, Cousins will take $23.94 million if you give it to him. "We will cross that bridge when we come to it, but I would probably do what I did last year," Cousins said at the Pro Bowl. "I will sign it and play with it. I'm not afraid." Cousins would obviously prefer a long-term deal, but the tag would be far from a catastrophic scenario, as it would simply make him much richer while still only merely delaying an inevitable monster payday. It's in the Redskins' interest to get a deal done this year. Source: ESPN.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos 2,847 Posted January 27, 2017 If you think Kirk is going to be an eternal 11-15 QB why pay him 17-20m a year? Carson Wentz went #2 last year and is on a 4/26 contract. If you believe Trubisky, Kizer, or Watson can be at least a decent QB from the start it's more than convincing enough to go from a 5/100 deal that Kirk wants to a 4/26 with maybe more picks. If you don't pay him he's leaving in FA for a third round comp pick down the road or getting franchise tagged to make even more money per year. I would argue prior to this year most people would have put Matt Ryan in that same range. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oochymp 2,393 Posted January 27, 2017 I'm surprised nobody's brought this up yet, but Pierre Garcon and Desean Jackson are both free agents this offseason too, if a megadeal for Cousins prevents them from re-signing either or both of those receivers is it worth it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seanbrock 1,684 Posted January 27, 2017 If I'm the Skins I try to get one of them back and draft a guy. Luckily for the Skins they have Crowder waiting in the wings ready to step up in a bigger role in that offense. He's a good player, underrated and underutilized imo. I think they'll be fine at WR. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oochymp 2,393 Posted July 18, 2017 1 year/$23,493,600 I'll be the one to predict it, the Skins offer him something comparable to Osweiler, Cousins asks for something closer to Andrew Luck, the two sides don't get close and Cousins plays next season on a franchise tag again What do I win? 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites