NFL News

Home

Teams

Quizzes

Watch

Newsletter

Kirk Cousins of the Washington gambled last year when he turned down a long-term offer and instead allowed the team to use the franchise tag on him for the 2016 season. Photo by Leon Halip/Getty Images

Athletes don't owe us or teams any discounts

By Mike Tunison | Last updated 1/5/17

Kirk Cousins knew he was taking a calculated risk turning down a multi-year deal last off-season and accepting a one-year franchise tag from Washington. It meant a huge salary for 2016 but possibly torpedoing his prospects beyond this season.

If Cousins had a truly rotten year, or suffered a catastrophic injury, his earning potential would plummet hitting the market again in 2017. Neither of those things happened, though a few lackluster performances down the stretch dampened what could have been a truly breakthrough season. Cousins is still going to do plenty fine at the bargaining table. He had an impressive season, throwing for more than 4,900 yards and posting a touchdown-to-interception ratio of 25-12. Pro Football Focus rated him as a top-10 NFL passer in 2016. Of all the quarterbacks who could be available this off-season, including Jay Cutler and Tony Romo, it’s not hard to make the case that Cousins is the best of the bunch.

Whether that contract comes from Washington remains to be seen. On the open market Cousins could fetch something comparable to the $24.6 million per-year rate that Andrew Luck received last June. There is the option for another franchise tag that would lock in Cousins at $23.94 million in 2017, meaning the process would be kicked down the pike for another year.

In the meantime, with several key ‘Skins offensive starters hitting free agency, there are those asking whether Cousins should accept a below market value deal to remain in Washington. In a radio interview, Cousins explained his approach from a collective labor perspective:

“There are other quarterbacks that come after you, and it would be almost a selfish move to hurt future quarterbacks who get in position to have a contract. If you don’t take a deal that’s fair to you, then you’re also taking a deal that’s not fair to them, and you’re setting them back as well. So, there’s different reasons and you do the best you can. Frankly, once you sign the contract, there’s no law saying you can’t renegotiate. If you sign the deal and you end up coming away from two seasons saying, ‘Hey, not only did we not win, but I think the reason is that I’m taking too much,’ then you can always talk about changing that. But I don’t see a need to do that on the front end. If you can win football games and play well and play at a high level still making a fair number, then why do you need to predetermine that and go down? I think for all those reasons you want to find your value and then be able to play off that accordingly.”

This drew a scoff from former Raiders CEO Amy Trask.

Reading that Kirk Cousins is concerned that if he takes less, that will harm other QBs - oh be still my heart, such selfless altruism.
— Amy Trask (@AmyTrask) January 3, 2017

Then there was NBC’s Mike Florio, who unfavorably compared Cousins to Tom Brady, both on the field and as a teammate interested in helping the front office build a champion by taking less money from the salary cap. That’s a curious conclusion, since Brady made $29 million in 2016. The Patriots are able to restructure Brady’s deal every few years to clear cap room, though not to give Brady less money, before he’s locked down in long-term deals that can be restructured. There’s no such framework in place for Cousins.

Florio is grudgingly willing to admit Cousins isn’t a horrible person for pursuing his market value, but not without calling him selfish and framing him in a negative light.

“If Washington won’t be investing $23.94 million in a quarterback whose interception helped doom a playoff run against a Giants team that had nothing to gain or lose, Cousins will find his value in the two-day window before he becomes a free agent. And if Houston’s experience with Brock Osweiler makes another team leery about a proverbial pig in a poke, Cousins will find that his value isn’t what he hoped it would be.

No matter how it plays out, the message is clear: Cousins plans to sign a contract that reflects his market value, whatever it may be and whether Washington likes it or not.
Cousins has every right to do that. He should do that. But he shouldn’t act like he’s making a sacrifice for the benefit of future quarterbacks.

He’s getting every dollar he can while he can get it. And he should admit that he’s being justifiably selfish when it comes to his own income instead of creating the impression that he’s looking to grab every dollar not for his own benefit but for the benefit of the quarterbacks who come after him.”

The comparison to Osweiler is downright silly and meant to make Cousins seem like more a risk than he is. The former Broncos quarterback only had seven career starts over four seasons when he was given $37 million guaranteed by Houston last year. Cousins already has 41 career starts. He’s hardly an unknown commodity.

There’s little reason to see why Cousins should be loyal to Washington. If it weren’t for Robert Griffin III’s career implosion, Cousins likely wouldn’t have had a chance to prove himself as a starter there. Dan Snyder made it clear for the outset in 2012 that he was enamored with Griffin and kept campaigning for him well after RGIII’s decline was evident. Even after Cousins proved himself a capable starter in 2015 and led the team to the playoffs, he wasn’t accorded respect by the team. There was a report by Florio last summer that general manager Scot McCloughan saw Cousins as eminently replaceable if a deal couldn’t get done.

And why should be it be bad for Cousins to see his pursuit of what he is worth as less than a collective gain for his fellow quarterbacks? The only reason there is drama surrounding Washington’s offer is the effect it has on the ‘Skins salary cap situation. The cap is a device used by the league to suppress wages. So it’s fine to reinforce teams working together to keep player wages down but not players thinking about how their actions influence others?

This week, the NFL put out a Football Life parody trailer for Rod Tidwell to coincide with the 20th anniversary of Jerry Maguire.

Tidwell is humanized somewhat in the movie, but also portrayed as ridiculous for his singular pursuit of money. There’s the specter of injury at the end, the threat that his livelihood could be taken away, but then he’s instantly, almost miraculously better, so it’s fine. We get to believe that happy endings are the default. Lots of players have similar scares, and many others actually have their careers cut short in similar situations, or worse.

What we know now about the long-term health effects of football should instruct our understanding for what drives players to maximize their earnings while they can. Quarterbacks are uniquely positioned to do that because of the importance of their position and the dearth of quality ones available in the league. If Cousins can take advantage, why shouldn’t he, and why should he view his struggle as wholly distinct from others?

More must-reads: