Jump to content

why didnt we get any compensatory picks?


mar29020

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, lavar703 said:

Swearinger was worth every dime. We've needed a safety like him for years.

I really hope we don’t go buck wild this offseason in free agency. We need to bring back a few of our own cheap FAs for depth, hopefully have another good draft and sign just one good FA WR to start opposite Doctson and compete with Crowder Grant, Harris and a draft pick for that starting spot.

I know they’ll probably screw it up, but I’d love to get that 3rd round comp for Kirk in the 2019 draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we'll get squat for Cousins. They'll find some way, to screw us there.

It's why I've been so adamant about tagging & trading Cousins. So we could get something of value for his services.

I sure as hell, wouldn't leave anything up to the league to get us compensatory picks.

But another reason? I think we need to be aggressive in FA.

Not stupid spending, but aggressive in filling holes, get Alex some weapons & strengthening our defense.

and if we do that, you know we aren't getting compensatory picks.

Tag & Trade front office! The demand is there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, aceinthehouse said:

I don't think we'll get squat for Cousins. They'll find some way, to screw us there.

No, only the Redskins can screw the Redskins in the case of compensatory picks. If they want maximum value (pick #97), they have to basically sit out the early part of free agency.

13 minutes ago, aceinthehouse said:

It's why I've been so adamant about tagging & trading Cousins. So we could get something of value for his services.

And it's why I've been so adamant that it isn't happening after trading for Alex Smith. No one believes that they would actually keep two quarterbacks on the salary cap at $50M for anything other than a day or two.

14 minutes ago, aceinthehouse said:

I sure as hell, wouldn't leave anything up to the league to get us compensatory picks.

But another reason? I think we need to be aggressive in FA.

Well ... if the Redskins follow your second thought, then they will get nothing in compensatory picks.

Folks, these picks are compensation for free agents you lost the previous year. If you mitigated your losses last year, then you don't get anything.

One other thing to keep in mind: we helped give the Cowboys a compensatory pick for signing Terrell McClain.

15 minutes ago, aceinthehouse said:

Not stupid spending, but aggressive in filling holes, get Alex some weapons & strengthening our defense.

and if we do that, you know we aren't getting compensatory picks.

Tag & Trade front office! The demand is there.

The demand is there, absolutely. However, no one believes the Redskins are serious about keeping Cousins under contract for anything beyond a week. Plus there's the grievance problem as well. If the Redskins were to lose that process, that could be the one case where they wouldn't get a compensatory pick even if they weren't aggressive in free agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Woz said:

No, only the Redskins can screw the Redskins in the case of compensatory picks. If they want maximum value (pick #97), they have to basically sit out the early part of free agency.

And it's why I've been so adamant that it isn't happening after trading for Alex Smith. No one believes that they would actually keep two quarterbacks on the salary cap at $50M for anything other than a day or two.

Well ... if the Redskins follow your second thought, then they will get nothing in compensatory picks.

Folks, these picks are compensation for free agents you lost the previous year. If you mitigated your losses last year, then you don't get anything.

One other thing to keep in mind: we helped give the Cowboys a compensatory pick for signing Terrell McClain.

The demand is there, absolutely. However, no one believes the Redskins are serious about keeping Cousins under contract for anything beyond a week. Plus there's the grievance problem as well. If the Redskins were to lose that process, that could be the one case where they wouldn't get a compensatory pick even if they weren't aggressive in free agency.

We will probably just let him go. I know....

 

I'm not a cousin fan, but I would still rather not have to face him on a stacked Vikings team or him run over to the G-men. Lol

I would rather him be with the Jets, Browns or Broncos personally. A tag & trade would insure that for at least 1 season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, aceinthehouse said:

I'm not a cousin fan, but I would still rather not have to face him on a stacked Vikings team or him run over to the G-men. Lol

Next to zero chance the Giants sign him. If they're planning for the future, they'll use their #2 pick to address the QB position (and get the cheap talent).

Vikings ... that's a more likely case.

52 minutes ago, aceinthehouse said:

I would rather him be with the Jets, Browns or Broncos personally. A tag & trade would insure that for at least 1 season.

  1. We're not facing the VIkings next year either so we wouldn't have to worry about that (unless we make the playoffs and in that case, hey both sides win and I'll eat a little crow (I tend to prefer mine with either Cajun seasoned or Jamaican jerk)).
  2. Okay, so he's over with team X for a year. What stops him from leaving the following year to a team you don't want him to go to? The franchise tag option will no longer apply to him, and the transition tag won't really stop him from moving.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...