There are 224 users in the forums

QB Candidates Thread: The Search for the QBoTF

Shop Find 49ers gear online
Feb 17, 2017 at 6:01 PM
Originally posted by TheWooLick:
If Cousins wants out like Kaep wanted out last year, I hope they ate less stubborn about compensation that the 49ers were.

Difference is Kap had a contract, Cousins doesn't. That was the only reason why the trade didn't go through by all accounts.
The above videos are auto-populated by an affiliate.
Feb 17, 2017 at 6:03 PM
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by BOI49er:
Washington doesn't own him. Cousins played out his contract at the end of 2015. Nobody has ever tried to retain (without a new contract) or trade a quarterback that played out his contract two years prior. I submit to you the comparative sample size is zero. Nobody ever got Anything in that situation. Why should we be the first to pay?


Patriots franchised Cassel and traded him for a 2nd. As long as Washington can franchise Cousins they have some leverage. At worst they could start an open auction for his services. While I'm sure he'd love to go to the 49ers, money still spends the same in Chicago and New York.

Cousins has all the leverage if he's willing to wait a year and then be unrestricted. If he wants to play for SF? I see it being a pretty straight forward deal. Just not sure what SF would give up for him. How about trading back and then giving them a low 1st or 2nd? Seems fair.
Feb 17, 2017 at 6:06 PM
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by LVJay:
AJ McCarron a better trade target than Garoppolo?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000786482/article/aj-mccarron-a-better-trade-target-than-garoppolo

Poor man's Alex Smith IMO. Outside of a game versus a beleaguered 49ers defense, he really wasnt very impressive considering all the weapons that he had at his disposal.

It should be pointed out, though, that McCarron's effectiveness waned after showing initial promise. He failed to convert a single third down in the regular-season finale versus the Ravens and was shut out for three quarters in the rain as the Bengals lost a memorable playoff bout with the Steelers.

I think Washington would target him (not for a first round pick) or Glennon if Cousins leaves.
Feb 17, 2017 at 6:09 PM
Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by BOI49er:
Washington doesn't own him. Cousins played out his contract at the end of 2015. Nobody has ever tried to retain (without a new contract) or trade a quarterback that played out his contract two years prior. I submit to you the comparative sample size is zero. Nobody ever got Anything in that situation. Why should we be the first to pay?


Patriots franchised Cassel and traded him for a 2nd. As long as Washington can franchise Cousins they have some leverage. At worst they could start an open auction for his services. While I'm sure he'd love to go to the 49ers, money still spends the same in Chicago and New York.

Cousins has all the leverage if he's willing to wait a year and then be unrestricted. If he wants to play for SF? I see it being a pretty straight forward deal. Just not sure what SF would give up for him. How about trading back and then giving them a low 1st or 2nd? Seems fair.

Don't think we would need to give anything up if Washington is interested in the 2nd pick. 17th pick and Cousins for #2. Think we could get more for the pick but would be extremely happy to get Cousins plus keep a mid first rounder in the deal. Wash can take Garrett if available or Allen at #2 which would bolster their defense significantly.
[ Edited by Ninerfan84 on Feb 17, 2017 at 6:09 PM ]
Feb 17, 2017 at 6:13 PM
Originally posted by Ninerfan84:
Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by BOI49er:
Washington doesn't own him. Cousins played out his contract at the end of 2015. Nobody has ever tried to retain (without a new contract) or trade a quarterback that played out his contract two years prior. I submit to you the comparative sample size is zero. Nobody ever got Anything in that situation. Why should we be the first to pay?


Patriots franchised Cassel and traded him for a 2nd. As long as Washington can franchise Cousins they have some leverage. At worst they could start an open auction for his services. While I'm sure he'd love to go to the 49ers, money still spends the same in Chicago and New York.

Cousins has all the leverage if he's willing to wait a year and then be unrestricted. If he wants to play for SF? I see it being a pretty straight forward deal. Just not sure what SF would give up for him. How about trading back and then giving them a low 1st or 2nd? Seems fair.

Don't think we would need to give anything up if Washington is interested in the 2nd pick. 17th pick and Cousins for #2. Think we could get more for the pick but would be extremely happy to get Cousins plus keep a mid first rounder in the deal. Wash can take Garrett if available or Allen at #2 which would bolster their defense significantly.

I'd prefer trading back for a pick between 10-15 and a second rounder we could trade for Cousins. That would allow them to take a very good player in the first to help solve two problems with one pick--QB and WR/ILB/S.
Feb 17, 2017 at 6:14 PM
Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by BOI49er:
Washington doesn't own him. Cousins played out his contract at the end of 2015. Nobody has ever tried to retain (without a new contract) or trade a quarterback that played out his contract two years prior. I submit to you the comparative sample size is zero. Nobody ever got Anything in that situation. Why should we be the first to pay?


Patriots franchised Cassel and traded him for a 2nd. As long as Washington can franchise Cousins they have some leverage. At worst they could start an open auction for his services. While I'm sure he'd love to go to the 49ers, money still spends the same in Chicago and New York.

Cousins has all the leverage if he's willing to wait a year and then be unrestricted. If he wants to play for SF? I see it being a pretty straight forward deal. Just not sure what SF would give up for him. How about trading back and then giving them a low 1st or 2nd? Seems fair.

I can not understand why everybody wants to throw away draft picks for what we can get for free. I just do not understand it. Maybe if you get him a year earlier, but that sure isn't worth first or a second with our roster, and you might well get him this year anyway.. Just hang tough.

I don't get it.
[ Edited by BOI49er on Feb 17, 2017 at 6:18 PM ]
Feb 17, 2017 at 6:15 PM
Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Originally posted by Ninerfan84:
Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by BOI49er:
Washington doesn't own him. Cousins played out his contract at the end of 2015. Nobody has ever tried to retain (without a new contract) or trade a quarterback that played out his contract two years prior. I submit to you the comparative sample size is zero. Nobody ever got Anything in that situation. Why should we be the first to pay?


Patriots franchised Cassel and traded him for a 2nd. As long as Washington can franchise Cousins they have some leverage. At worst they could start an open auction for his services. While I'm sure he'd love to go to the 49ers, money still spends the same in Chicago and New York.

Cousins has all the leverage if he's willing to wait a year and then be unrestricted. If he wants to play for SF? I see it being a pretty straight forward deal. Just not sure what SF would give up for him. How about trading back and then giving them a low 1st or 2nd? Seems fair.

Don't think we would need to give anything up if Washington is interested in the 2nd pick. 17th pick and Cousins for #2. Think we could get more for the pick but would be extremely happy to get Cousins plus keep a mid first rounder in the deal. Wash can take Garrett if available or Allen at #2 which would bolster their defense significantly.

I'd prefer trading back for a pick between 10-15 and a second rounder we could trade for Cousins. That would allow them to take a very good player in the first to help solve two problems with one pick--QB and WR/ILB/S.

Why would you prefer giving up a 1st and 2nd round pick comparative to simply trading back? Am I missing something?
Feb 17, 2017 at 6:16 PM
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by DonnieDarko:
Cousins wants out of WAS?


It seems that way. No telling how things will shake out but if they dont franchise him for some reason, he's a 49er. I just don't see them not applying the tag.

The report said h definitely wants out of WAS, but he wants to be tagged. I dont really understand.
Feb 17, 2017 at 6:16 PM
Originally posted by BOI49er:
Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by BOI49er:
Washington doesn't own him. Cousins played out his contract at the end of 2015. Nobody has ever tried to retain (without a new contract) or trade a quarterback that played out his contract two years prior. I submit to you the comparative sample size is zero. Nobody ever got Anything in that situation. Why should we be the first to pay?


Patriots franchised Cassel and traded him for a 2nd. As long as Washington can franchise Cousins they have some leverage. At worst they could start an open auction for his services. While I'm sure he'd love to go to the 49ers, money still spends the same in Chicago and New York.

Cousins has all the leverage if he's willing to wait a year and then be unrestricted. If he wants to play for SF? I see it being a pretty straight forward deal. Just not sure what SF would give up for him. How about trading back and then giving them a low 1st or 2nd? Seems fair.

I can not understand why everybody wants to throw away draft picks for what we can get for free. I just do not understand it. Maybe if you get him a year earlier, but that sure isn't worth first or a second with our roster. Just hang tough.

I don't get it.

Depends on what Cousins wants. If he really wants to come this year and the 9ers say no...will decide to go elsewhere next year? It's a very human decision and you need to work together.
Feb 17, 2017 at 6:21 PM
Originally posted by DonnieDarko:
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by DonnieDarko:
Cousins wants out of WAS?


It seems that way. No telling how things will shake out but if they dont franchise him for some reason, he's a 49er. I just don't see them not applying the tag.

The report said h definitely wants out of WAS, but he wants to be tagged. I dont really understand.

It's basically saying that he would rather be tagged for a year than do a long term extension with them.
Feb 17, 2017 at 6:26 PM
Originally posted by DonnieDarko:
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by DonnieDarko:
Cousins wants out of WAS?


It seems that way. No telling how things will shake out but if they dont franchise him for some reason, he's a 49er. I just don't see them not applying the tag.

The report said h definitely wants out of WAS, but he wants to be tagged. I dont really understand.

That means "Go ahead and tag me, I'm Never Ever signing a contract with you". He doesn't want to be tagged rather being released. but will gladly play under the tag for $24m rather than being stuck there for many years to come. It's a negotiating stance, and if he can convince Washington that there is no way he's a long term solution, that serves his purpose to make them look at other alternatives.

Tag him this year, and he's free for sure next March, because nobody believes they'll tag him next year at $35.9m.
[ Edited by BOI49er on Feb 17, 2017 at 6:28 PM ]
Feb 17, 2017 at 7:02 PM
Would you guys give up the #2 pick for Cousins? I would.
Feb 17, 2017 at 7:05 PM
Originally posted by jb49ers80:
Would you guys give up the #2 pick for Cousins? I would.

Hell no. No reason to do it either. Washington is up s**t's Creek right now, they either keep him for a year in an attempt to try and convince him to sign a long term deal and he walks after next season or they take whatever it is they can get on the open market in a trade, assuming that Cousins is content to go somewhere else besides the 49ers.
[ Edited by Phoenix49ers on Feb 17, 2017 at 7:05 PM ]
Feb 17, 2017 at 7:05 PM
Originally posted by jb49ers80:
Would you guys give up the #2 pick for Cousins? I would.

That's where I draw the line.

If we have to give up any first round pick, I would rather just wait until next season.
Feb 17, 2017 at 7:10 PM
Originally posted by jb49ers80:
Would you guys give up the #2 pick for Cousins? I would.

No, because its unnecessary. If the Redskins are willing to deal, a deal can be worked out without surrounding the 2nd overall. If they insist on the 2nd overall, I just wait until next year to sign him as a FA. Franchising Cousins in 2018 would cost the Skins an estimated $34.4 mil. Its highly unlikely they franchise him a 3rd time at that number. They are running out of time to do a deal for him, and the more disgruntled Cousins gets forcing his way out, the less leverage they have imo.
Search
YouTube
Flipboard
Instagram
Threads
✕
Open Menu Search Share 49ersWebzone