By Ronald N. Guy Jr.
Washington QB Kirk Cousins pocketed $2.7M total during
his first four years in the NFL. This coming
season alone, Cousins will earn $19.953M on a one-year franchise tag.
Despite the unimaginable raise, the prevailing
suggestion, given the lucrative quarterback marketplace, is that Cousins should
be insulted by the team’s disrespect of his talent.
His accomplishments are inarguable: In 2015, the final
year of his rookie contract, Cousins led Washington to a division title, set a single-season
franchise record for passing yards and provided a definitive exit from the
disastrous Robert Griffin III era. And
for all this, Cousins got “rewarded” with a prove-it-again deal. Preposterous.
Washington should have showered Cousins with a long-term contract and
football riches reserved only for elite quarterbacks. Instead, the organization slapped Cousins with
the one-year franchise tag and ultimately failed to reach a multi-year contract
extension by the July 15 deadline.
Washington did Captain Kirk dirty.
That’s the rhetoric being spewed by many media spin
doctors. The reality is there’s nothing
to see here. Two entities assessed a
professional situation and made individual business decisions. The world will continue to rotate. Cousins will work hard and, barring injury,
start at quarterback this fall.
Washington coaches will work intensely to ensure his and the team’s success. Should Cousins thrive in 2016, the process
will repeat itself again: Cousins will either play under the franchise tag at
an increased 2017 salary of $24M or sign a long-term contract.
While it is rare for franchised players to actually play
out the one-year contract and almost unprecedented for quarterbacks to do so,
this scenario makes perfect sense for both Washington and Cousins considering
the root of the impasse: a volatile quarterback market. This offseason, Andrew Luck set the bar after
signing a six-year, $140M contract with Indianapolis. Meanwhile, Brock Osweiler, an average
signal-caller, inked a four-year, $72M deal with Houston that includes $37M in
guarantees.
Where does Cousins fall on the Luck-Osweiler
continuum? Well, it’s hard to say, hence
the stalemate. The dollars that Luck
received provoked Cousins to bet on himself and another big season; conversely,
the guaranteed money being commanded by quarterbacks and Cousins’s relatively
shallow resume (he’s just 11-14 as a starter), gave Washington justifiable
pause.
Nobody blinked during negotiations – so here we are.
Given Washington’s compliment of offensive weapons,
its shaky running game and modest defensive talent, it is probable that Cousins
will throw often and compile impressive numbers. It is also probable that with each big statistical
outing – victorious or not – Washington’s front office will be ripped for
failing to lock up its quarterback.
Fair enough. Such
debate moves the needle. But not overpaying
to reach a long-term deal was absolutely the right move. With a salary cap of $155.3M and a 53-man
roster to fill, if a team pays elite quarterback money, it must ensure it will
receive elite quarterback play - and even if it does, the inequitable
allocation of financial resources produces uneven results.
Some of the best quarterbacks in the league – Drew
Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Ben Roethlisberger and Russell Wilson – won Super Bowls
on below-market contracts. After slipping
on their rings and scoring big deals, more Super Bowls didn’t always follow. Baltimore Ravens QB Joe Flacco is the most obvious
example of the elite quarterback financial trap: After winning the Super Bowl
in 2013, Flacco signed a six-year, $121M contract. The Ravens have managed just one winning
season since. But he’s not alone: In
2012, two years after winning the Super Bowl, New Orleans signed Brees to a
five-year, $100M contract. In the four
subsequent seasons, their record is 32-32.
Considering its decades of instability at the most
important position in team sports, Washington should feel fortunate to have
Cousins. And the hunch is a long-term
deal gets done next summer. But there
was no reason to rush to pay a relatively unproven asset this year. Every team – athletic or otherwise - needs
its quarterback, but individual positions don’t sustain success and win
championships, teams do. Washington’s
prudent handling of the Cousins negotiations was true to this formula.
Did I just use “Washington” and “prudent” in the same
sentence?
No comments:
Post a Comment