Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

2017 Franchise Tag Discussion (Latest: Trumaine Johnson)

Here's a running thread to discuss announcements on franchise tags. The Cardinals have kicked things off by tagging Chandler Jones, which will put Calais Campbell on the open market.

2 p.m. Eastern: Arizona has tagged Chandler Jones.
2 p.m. Eastern: Carolina has tagged Kawann Short.
4 p.m. Eastern: Pittsburgh has tagged Le'Veon Bell (exclusive).
5:25 p.m. Eastern: New York Giants will tag Jason Pierre-Paul.
8:45 p.m. Eastern: Los Angeles Chargers will in fact tag Melvin Ingram.
1:30 p.m. Eastern Tuesday: Washington has tagged Kirk Cousins (exclusive).
Noon Eastern Wednesday: Los Angeles Rams tag Trumaine Johnson


Chicago will apparently not tag Alshon Jeffrey, allowing him to go elsewhere. Kansas City has re-signed Eric Berry, so he will not be tagged, but reports say they will not tag Dontari Poe instead.


by Theo :: Mon, 02/27/2017 - 7:13pm

LeVeon Bell will get the ball 350 times next season, his backup will get 50 carries for 175 yards and Bell will probably be a Cardinal in 2018.

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Mon, 02/27/2017 - 11:35pm

he has his risks, but no way I let him walk for a reasonable price. he's their 2nd best WR too.

The standard is the standard!

by jtr :: Mon, 02/27/2017 - 8:06pm

Berry has to really hate the franchise tag right now. Safety is the second-cheapest of the non-K/P positions (TE is the only cheaper), so Berry is quite the bargain for KC. JPP gets about 50% more than Berry for the tag, and I think you would be hard-pressed to try to argue that JPP is significantly more valuable than Berry, even if safeties on average are less impactful than DE's.

by MJK :: Mon, 02/27/2017 - 8:10pm

Anyone else feel that the franchise tag should not be position based? If you want to value someone like a QB, you should pay them like a QB.

by Theo :: Mon, 02/27/2017 - 8:21pm

Owners are not going to agree. But you could argue that Tight Ends could be grouped with receivers and safeties with cornerbacks.
The owners will not pay a guard quarterback money.

by Will Allen :: Tue, 02/28/2017 - 4:00pm

I think the franchise tag is bullsh*t, period. The idea of giving ownership a long series of one year options, via a CBA, is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with the total profitability of the league as a whole, and by inhibiting salary growth of the best players, in a league with a hard cap, it probably weakens parity, which the league says it values. If a guy wants to live in city A, instead of city B, and the team in city A has the cap space for him, why should the CBA prevent him from doing so?

by Bright Blue Shorts :: Tue, 02/28/2017 - 5:23pm

Wasn't the original premise that it meant teams could keep their star player e.g Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith. And they only get one franchise tag. That was the worry when no-one understood how free agency would impact the league.

The player still gets paid handsomely - what is it Avg. of top 5 players at the position + 20%. And no team is going to tag them three times because it becomes prohibitively stupid.

It's almost twenty-five since free agency began, so I think they get an understanding of how it works. Union can always look to negotiate change at the next CBA deal ... but they won't because it affects about five players per year who push up the value of their position.

by Will Allen :: Tue, 02/28/2017 - 5:56pm

I think if it were eliminated it would actually increase the disparity between the highest paid players, qbs especially, and the players at lower tiers, so I can see why the rank and file would not see the elimination as a priority, especially without a concurrent increase in the gross revenue percentage received by the players, which the owners would go to war over. I do think the elimination would increase the number of ways for teams to construct championship rosters, as some teams overpaid for stars in a league with a hard cap. That's my selfish reason to want to see it go away; the more ways there are to construct a championship roster, the more interesting the league is.

by Vincent Verhei :: Tue, 02/28/2017 - 8:26pm

I think if the franchise tag were eliminated, the biggest beneficiaries would be the top 10 or 12 quarterbacks in the league, whose salaries would go way up, by as much as 50 percent for the Aaron Rodgers types. The losers would be the "bad starter" types, quarterbacks in the 15-to-25 range -- the Jay Cutlers and Alex Smiths of the NFL. Which, now that I think about it, probably would make things more fair, at least as far as compensation for the players goes.

by Will Allen :: Tue, 02/28/2017 - 8:37pm

And absent such a qb marrying a woman who makes more than he does, we'd see steroidal versions of the 2011 Colts; all QB with dreck around him. We likely would also then see teams which were great on both lines of scrimmage, but kind of mediocre elsewhete, be real contenders. I think that would be fun

by Levente from Hungary :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 3:40am

"absent such a qb marrying a woman who makes more than he does" - I never understood why do people think that athletes / CEOs would die of hunger if they didn't squeeze the last 10 millions of dollars out of their respective organizations. I mean does somebody really need that enormous amount of money to live? If QB has already made 85 million over the past 6 years, would he have a worse quality of life if his next contract is a few dozen million dollars less?
I understand the contempt against the other side - that the organization wants to buy you cheap and keep the money for itself. But if they fully allocate their salary cap (on other players) then you cannot say that either.

by Bright Blue Shorts :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 4:23am

It's partly because they've got an agent in the middle who wants to upp their commission and has almost nothing to lose by pushing the situation to the extreme.

But it's also because professional athletes have a huge amount of ego and competitive drive. So even a contract negotiation is a competition to be won and used as status to say they are the "highest paid in the league". It's why teams, particularly in the old days, backloaded contracts with a huge final year that inflated the overall contract value.

by Will Allen :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 9:38am

Nobody is saying that. What they are saying is that rich people typically want to get more rich. Why did LeBron James say, upon returning to Cleveland, that his days of accepting anything less than the max salary were over?

(Edit) To be clear, there are differences among individuals. Tim Duncan never made salary maximization a primary goal, and was rewarded with championships. Kevin Garnett, upon his 2nd contract, ruthlessly pursued maximizing his salary, and it no doubt hamstrung his team somewhat, although bad luck and ineptitude played larger roles. It sure helps a player make Duncan's decision when the player has extreme confidence in the quality of management, and it also does when the player's spouse pulls down 40 million a year.

by Noah Arkadia :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 11:56am

I agree that rich people want to get more rich, I don't see why it should be an exception if your wife is rich, too. I think the only exception is if you value something else more than money. But having enough money is never a reason, but because there's no such thing as "enough".

by Will Allen :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 12:15pm

Imagine two players, both making 20 million a year. One has a spouse making 40 million a year, another has a spouse who makes nothing. Which player do you think will be more likely to place greater value in another 5 million in salary, especially when the player with the spouse who makes nothing wasn't wise enough to have an iron clad prenup signed prior to marriage?

by Noah Arkadia :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 8:33pm

I think the same. I offer as proof baseball/basketball players. Baseball players make so much more money than football players that you could easily imagine they all have a regular football salary + rich spouses, and they don't behave any different from any other rich person that wants more.

by Will Allen :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 10:06pm

Your proof ignores the context of the earning potential of each sport, which is critical. Brady may be willing to take a bit of a haircut, to improve the chance of winning, and the fact that his wife earns 40 million annually surely plays a role. If you asked him to play for the veteran minimum, however, to really maximize the chance of winning, he'd likely tell you to forget it.

The idea that any person's demand for more income is completely inelastic seems pretty dubious.

by Bright Blue Shorts :: Thu, 03/02/2017 - 2:26am

I agree with Noah ... people who covet money (or any other thing) never think what they have is enough.

When they have $1 dollar, they want $10. When they have $10,000, they want $100,000; a million they want $10 million; $100 million they'll want $200 million.

The only thing that will limit their covetness is the belief of how much more is avaialble. And even if they got the whole salary cap, they'd still *want* another dollar.

by Will Allen :: Thu, 03/02/2017 - 7:52am

I didn't write that they think they have enough. I wrote that the demand for more money from the team is not completely inelastic, that different individuals have different valuations on obtaining more income from the employer, at any given time.

This is quite plainly true. LeBron James, when going to Miami, did not demand max dollars, even in a league with a soft cap. Upon returning to Cleveland, he said he would never play for less than the maximum again. Plenty of players have been known to give their existing team a discount, relative to what might be obtained from a new team. They didn't say they had enough. They said they would be willing to be paid less by their employer, due to other factors.

Sometimes those other factors have included differing state income tax rates, which meant the player was looking at other economic entities'affect on his own economic status, and not just his employer's affect, when evaluating this decision. It would be remarkable to claim that still another economic entity's affect on his economic status, a spouse with a 40 million dollar annual income, would be irrelevant to the decision making process. Human beings are a lot more complex than what is being potrayed here. They don't have an overriding rule written into their software, saying, "Must maximize my income from my employer".

(EDIT) I am going to bring up another basketball example, that I used prior, to again illustrate the point. Two HOFers, Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett, who came into the league the same year, placed very different valuations on extracting the next dollar available from their respective employers. That doesn't mean that Duncan didn't covet money.

by Eddo :: Thu, 03/02/2017 - 7:01pm

Your examples of players who took less than necessary all did so because of the quality of their teams. The simpler explanation for Brady's lack of a max salary is more likely because he'd rather continue to win in New England than demand to make more money, but have the team be less successful.

by Will Allen :: Thu, 03/02/2017 - 10:42pm

My entire point in this thread is that the cause of human behavior is nearly always multifactoral. It simply is an extraordinarily remarkable claim that a spouse earning 40 million dollars a year has zero effect on what value the other spouse places on the marginal dollarobtained from his employer.

by Noah Arkadia :: Sat, 03/04/2017 - 2:42pm

I'm sure it's a factor. I still think it's remarkable when any athlete in any sport agrees to make less money than he possibly could, because it's such a rare thing.

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Mon, 03/06/2017 - 7:44pm

keep in mind Brady gets more $ from the game than just his direct Pats paycheck (no, I don't mean his endorsements, either).

The standard is the standard!

by dryheat :: Fri, 03/03/2017 - 10:23am

Many professional athletes also consider it a duty to the Player's Union to keep pushing the bar up.

by Will Allen :: Fri, 03/03/2017 - 11:29am

In baseball, in particular, there is a massive amount of peer pressure within the union to never tallow your services to be discounted, and because the careers last so much longer, the sense of group solidarity is much stronger. Human behavior rarely has simple explanations.

by Will Allen :: Fri, 03/03/2017 - 11:29am

In baseball, in particular, there is a massive amount of peer pressure within the union to never tallow your services to be discounted, and because the careers last so much longer, the sense of group solidarity is much stronger. Human behavior rarely has simple explanations.

by Bright Blue Shorts :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 4:11am

VV - Initially what you said sounded right but the list of QBs who've been franchise tagged since 2007 is very short. So I doubt it makes much difference to them if you do get rid of it.

2016 - Cousins
2015 - Cousins (Non-exclusive)
2012 - Brees
2011 - Michael Vick and Peyton Manning
2009 - Matt Cassell (Non-exclusive)

by Mr Shush :: Thu, 03/02/2017 - 8:21pm

It's not about the QBs who actually get tagged, it's about the QBs who sign deals worse than what they would get in the open market because of the additional leverage the ability to franchise them gives the teams.

by Vincent Verhei :: Tue, 02/28/2017 - 8:22pm

The Seahawks franchised Walter Jones for three years in a row in the mid-2000s, though obviously salaries were much lower then than they are now -- the most he made in any of those years was $7.1 million.

by Jerry P. :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 1:01am

The NFLPA agreed to the CBA, franchise tag included. So the answer to your question is the CBA should prevent them from doing so because that's what they agreed to.

I am not sure where you get "has nothing to do with league profitability as a whole" since the salary cap was originally based off of gross revenue. Then was changed to include revenue from stadium naming rights, premium seating, and local advertising in 2006. As of 2014, the salary cap is now calculated off of all revenue streams.

In fact, the way I am reading that, if revenue increases but profitability drops, the salary cap goes up because it is based off revenue and not profits. So I guess technically, you are right. It is not based off profitability.

This has resulted in league wide pay raises of:

2006 -> 2007 - 6.8%
2007 -> 2008 - 6.4%
2008 -> 2009 - 6.0%
2009 -> 2010 - No cap, lols
2010 -> 2011 - -2.4% (with respect to 2009)
2011 -> 2012 - .005%
2012 -> 2013 - 2.0%
2013 -> 2014 - 8.1%
2014 -> 2015 - 7.7%
2015 -> 2016 - 8.4%

4.2% increases in annual pay since the financial collapse (oh sorry, near collapse) of 2008 (8.3% year over year starting in 2003, FYI). Most of America hasn't received a single pay raise in that time despite GDP and productivity continuing to increase over the period.

I expect the recent string of 8% increases to stop in the short term and then explode again when the NFL is free of Sunday Ticket and can rake in the cash selling a streaming service (which neatly falls under "all revenue streams").

So NFL players appear to be doing quite well for themselves in what is a very hostile economy for normal people. But they aren't doing as well as all those old, rich, white people who own the teams and I think that is what you are really mad about.

And since I am not Fake News CNN. Here are my sources. Straight from the Russian hackers.


by Will Allen :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 9:51am

Technically right is the best kind of right. The Franchise tag does nothing to make money for the owners directly. It merely affects salary distribution, and to the extent it weakens solidarity between the best players and the rest, it may indirectly help ownership.

Please don't be so rude as to tell me what I am "mad" about. I merely stated that I thought it was ridiculous that a person with extremely valuable skills would not be able to sell those skills in the city the person prefers, because a CBA granted management a series of one year options upon the expiration of the person's contract. I also would like to see the tag go away, because I think the product I consume would improve if it went away.

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 2:41pm

we don't have the internet and telcom capacity to stream in decent quality now.

Hell no to the NFL leaving S/T and moving to streaming only. Some of us like watching on more than a phone or laptop screen and macroblocked/stuttering ridden 720p (at its best moments) with 2.0 stereo

The standard is the standard!

by Jerry P. :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 9:08pm

Move away from Yinzertown, buddy. My internet in New York, Vermont, and now Missouri has been just fine for streaming MLB.tv going on 5 years now.

Fox is 720p to begin with so I don't see how having "merely" 720p ability is a hindrance. Oh yeah, AFC fan. CBS has spoiled you with 1080p, I guess.

But regional and cross-conference joking aside, I have some bad news for you if you think cable and satellite are long for this world.

by FireSnake :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 7:57am

The franchise tag ALWAYS works in favor of the player and hardly ever in favor of the team.

Which is why well run franchises hardly ever apply the tag. Applying the tag guarantees the money for the player, player gets a artificially high cap number, and agreeing on a long term deal after tag is applied favors the player, because the negotiation starts with a minimum which is a) artificially high and b) guaranteed.

The Redskins basically shot themselves in the foot last year with Cousins, a situation they won't ever solve.

The Patriots trying to avoid this artificially high number as the starting point with Hightower (as they did with McCourty) ... I guess he walks, Had they tagged him, it would have been a one year rental. And if thhe majority of the FAs the Patriots have on D walk (L. Ryan, Sheard, Hightower, Branch, Harmon, C. Long) and somebody signs Butler to an offer sheet, they will be in deep trouble. But they can patch it in 2018 with the comp picks;) I guess Belichick finds a way to patch this, but the talk about the 60+m cap space the Patriots have is not funny since they dont have a defense currently.

by Jerry :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 8:45am

The franchise tag ALWAYS works in favor of the player and hardly ever in favor of the team.

If that were true, no team would ever apply the franchise tag. "Which is why well run franchises hardly ever apply the tag" is more accurate; they only do so when it's to their financial advantage.

Washington may be overpaying Cousins, but they're doing it a year at a time while they have no better alternative available. It's easy to imagine Cousins could have gotten an Osweiler-type contract if he'd been a free agent.

by Will Allen :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 10:05am

The franchise tag isn't a great hammer for the team to hold over the player, especially as subsequent CBAs have made the franchise terms more favorable to players, but clearly what would be best for the best players is to merely have their contracts expire, with the pkayer becoming an UFA.

If a guy like Andrew Luck had benn able to become an UFA upon expiration of his first contract, he would have been in a much more favorable position.

by FireSnake :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 1:08pm

No, that's not true. The existence of the tag and the sheer possibility of the team applying it to a player sets the bottom for a multi year contract. And if you are a difference maker, you usually will get a new contract before you hit free agency. And if you are not, the floor set by the tag number is usually higher than what the player would get from other teams.

The only risk for the player playing under the tag is a) severe injury at the end of the season or b) a massive decline in production. And the latter doesn't really hold true / Alshon Jeffery will most likely not see a reduced rate to what he could have gotten last year.

by Will Allen :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 1:18pm

Yes, you get a new contract before you hit free agency. You don't get as good an offer as you would if you could actively use two or more teams to bid up the offers.

by FireSnake :: Thu, 03/02/2017 - 6:32am

So all "franchise qbs" (Luck, Flacco, Rodgers) and WRs (Megatron, Dez, Green ...) are just plain dumb and "could have made much more money"? Silly. One or two may be dumb enough, but not all of them. Why are these guys hardly ever franchised? Because the teams know that it would not work in their favor (that also includes contract structure, guarantees ...). You would end up in a situation like the Saints or the Redskins.

So you guys say that the tag is a team friendly construct and bad for the players, yet teams hardly ever use these tags. Yeah, the teams must all be run by idiots.

by Will Allen :: Thu, 03/02/2017 - 1:07pm

You really aren't thinking this through. In the NFL, the injury risk is gigantic, and that has to be factored when a player decides to play hardball with a team that can franchise him. Can the team completely hardball the player? No, of course not, because if the player gets angry enough, and calls the team's bluff by signing the franchise, then the leverage might shift in the future. Make no mistake however, the player who plays under the franchise tag is absorbing significant risk, which means the team does not have to offer as much in a long year deal, as they would if the player could not be tagged, and was able to play 2 or 3 teams, all desperate for that position, against each other.

(edit) To illustrate the inhury risk, consider that a college senior who anticipates being drafted in the 1st round will have to pay about 80k, to obtain 10 million dollars in coverage against a significant injury that occurs his senior year. The premium is .8% of the total payout, for coverage lasting 13-14 games, and the insurer will fight the insured tooth and nail, if the insured files a claim.

by Tom Gower :: Mon, 02/27/2017 - 9:43pm

By APY, Kam Chancellor's the highest-paid SS at $7 million per year. Berry made about $10.6 million last year and will make more than that this year. JPP and Ingram on the tag is a relative bargain for their teams. Berry on the tag is not.

by PatsFan :: Tue, 02/28/2017 - 10:45am

What's the deadline to place the franchise, transition, etc. tags on players?

by Bryan Knowles :: Tue, 02/28/2017 - 2:28pm

March 1st -- so, tomorrow.

by Bryan Knowles :: Tue, 02/28/2017 - 2:42pm

Heh, I was just coming in to add the Cousins news. Kinda a big deal, after it was reported that he would only sign with San Francisco on Monday -- probably a bit of contentious negotiations going on in Washington.

by apk3000 :: Tue, 02/28/2017 - 4:08pm

Plenty of stories of how utterly screwed the Redskins are. They didn't seem to value him, so either they now have to give him a crazy money long term deal, or (likely) watch him walk next year to SF or LA.

by T-Vector :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 3:02am

If they really weren't sold on Cousins, why did they do the exclusive tag? Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the team who loses a non-exclusive get two number ones? That is more than they can get from a trade and they don't have to pay as much. I assume the Redskins want to keep him.

by apk3000 :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 9:55am

Possible reasons are because they don't want Cousins to talk to teams to gauge how waiting for next offseason might pay off or that it gives the Skins the slight trade advantage that Cousins can't work out a contract with another team and announce that he'll only sign long term with that team.

by ChrisS :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 2:08pm

I agree, I would rather have 2 first round draft picks (at the end of round 1) than Kirk Cousins.

by Will Allen :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 2:23pm

Cousins is only a year younger than Bradford. Bradford has never played in as good an offensive environment as Cousins has enjoyed for the last couple years. Bradford was worth a mid 1st and a fourth to a desperate team, just as the regular season was about to begin.

Getting two firsts for Cousins would have been a comparative bargain for the D.C. Snyders.

by T-Vector :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 7:01pm

If the two firsts are from San Francisco, how many of these would be top ten? SF is a lousy team, it will take a while to rebuild. That would still be longer if they gave up two firsts. The thought of stopping negotiation has some merit. The difference in dollar signs between the two franchise tags is, however, a real thing.

What I am saying is that the Redskins have obviously decided on Cousins. I like this because I hate Dan Snyder. It is a poor move for a team losing its top two receivers and has concussion problems with its star Tight End.

Without that kind of support, Cousins is Brian Hoyer.

by justanothersteve :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 7:06pm

Not comparable. Bradford was only being kept as a one-season placeholder for Wentz, and they had a third QB in Chase Daniel. Washington only has Colt McCoy. Cousins is more valuable to his team than Bradford was to the Eagles.

by Will Allen :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 8:31pm

If you are negotiating without regard to what the asset is worth to the person who wishes to acquire it, you aren't doing it right.

by billprudden :: Tue, 02/28/2017 - 3:32pm

I gotta know how Kirk's income over the last 6 months + next 24-36 months are sitting in the RG3 household. The reversal of fortune aspect of this drama is downright Greek, hubris included.

by PatsFan :: Tue, 02/28/2017 - 4:47pm

Schefter says NE will *not* tag Hightower.

Oh well, Dont'a -- thanks for the rings and good luck!

by FireSnake :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 8:02am

Could very well end up like McCourty ... a contract that looks too rich but looks good two years later. I hope it doesn't end up like Jerod Mayo ... interior LBs always get injured after signing big deals.

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 2:42pm

he'd be welcome in PGH where he always belonged to begin with.

The standard is the standard!

by CaffeineMan :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 5:05pm

RE: McCourty-like situation for Hightower.

That's what I'm hoping for. He checks out the market and eventually does a deal with the Pats. Sounds like he and the Pats were far apart on a deal, so the Pats are looking for more market data.

by dryheat :: Fri, 03/03/2017 - 10:18am

I can't imagine that Belichick, having traded Jones and Collins at least in part to open up some cap room to resign Hightower, is going to let Hightower get away. I mean, if Cleveland flush with 100m cap space makes an offer he can't refuse, it's possible, but with all the potential FA losses on the defense, Belichick better have one hell of a plan B....possibly trading UP in the draft to get the best 3-down linebacker available.

by Raiderjoe :: Fri, 03/03/2017 - 11:31am

that is possibly r. foster from alabamr btu would cost multiple pcisk to trade up to get him. very unlikely. can probably just stay tight at 32 and get good linevbacker there or at pick 64 (if they still own that pick)

by Parmenides :: Tue, 02/28/2017 - 8:38pm

The problem with Cousins is that you have to have a team around him for him to produce. He's not that accurate and gets bailed out by his receivers which make him look better than he is. If you pay him top QB money then you make the cap smaller and don't allow yourself the ability to keep the team around him that makes him look good. Then four years later when everyone has walked off to other teams for more money, you're stuck with a quarterback who doesn't look good and people are screaming that the contract was a bad idea.

by jtr :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 10:44am

Right now Jackson and Garcon are both free agents. It's going to be tough to keep them both around when you are throwing $24M at your QB. I can definitely picture a season coming up where one of their top WR's leaves in FA and Jordan Reed misses several games (as he has every season of his career so far). Cousins has a bit of a down year, and now Washington isn't quite sure what to think about him, so they get outbid by the desperate Bears/Jets/49ers/Browns. Then they somehow talk themselves into throwing a gigantic contract at Tony Romo, who ends up being ineffective and injured.

Think about it, it's the most Dan Snyder way this could unfold.

by Raiderjoe :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 12:19pm

did not realize m. Gordon up for new contract alreayd

by Eddo :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 12:48pm

That's Melvin Ingram being franchised, Joe.

by Raiderjoe :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 1:07pm

whjoops and not even drinking. can't use alcohol as exujcuse for momentary blindness

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Mon, 03/06/2017 - 7:44pm

there's an old wives tale about that....

The standard is the standard!

by commissionerleaf :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 2:37pm

Sensible: Arizona has tagged Chandler Jones.
Smart: Carolina has tagged Kawann Short.
Defensible: Pittsburgh has tagged Le'Veon Bell (exclusive).
Defensible: New York Giants will tag Jason Pierre-Paul.
Okay: Los Angeles Chargers will in fact tag Melvin Ingram.
What?: Washington has tagged Kirk Cousins (exclusive).
Surprising: Los Angeles Rams tag Trumaine Johnson.

Tagging decent running backs is always sensible because they are only going to be decent for another year or two anyway, so locking them up without multiyear guarantees is smart.

Tagging a QB twice in a row is silly. Anyone think Kirk Cousins is a decent starter? (Hands go up.) Anyone think he regresses to Joe Flacco levels of competence over the next couple of years? (Hands go up.) Anyone think his regression is 100% assured if Washington loses DeSean Jackson and Pierre Garcon? (Hands go up.) Anyone think Kirk Cousins is still worth $15-20M a year on a long term deal even if he regresses a little, especially if you get to thereby keep the receivers? (Hands go up.)

The Redskins are silly.

by Will Allen :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 2:51pm

Yeah, I woulda' tagged him non-exclusively, and hoped somebody made him an offer.

by MarkV :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 11:19pm

while I agree that a non-exclusive tag was a better choice, I get the appeal of the exclusive tag: It cements right now their starter for next year, and it gives the team leverage (somewhat) for working out a long-term deal - because a long term deal with the team is the only way for Cousins to get the largest chunk of actually guaranteed money.

I also don't know what Washington was ever supposed to do other than what they did. They tagged Cousins after what looked like an outlier year, and he signed it right away. They couldn't then work on a long term deal until after the season ended... at which point their only leverage was to franchise him again.

I also think y'all are collectively being WAY too negative on Cousins skills. The list of starters who have had back to back 1000 DYAR seasons is a very good list to be on. Cousins has only been a starter for two years and has accomplished that. There have been QBs who flashed in the pan, but right now the worst QBs of the last 20 years that meet those standards are Trent Greene, Daunte Culpepper, or Phillip Rivers. That is pretty darn good company to be in.

It also shows why it was so important for Washington to tag him last year. There are more QBs that have had one really good year (and a bunch of those QBs even had a few other years of ok work), but two really good years has generally meant great things.

by Will Allen :: Thu, 03/02/2017 - 12:16pm

Culpepper nver reached 1000 DYAR in two consecutive years. I actually think he is an interesting case, however, in that he was top tier when he had outstanding talent around him, including perhaps the most game altering receiver ever, but when there was any any decline form that outstanding talent, he was only mid-tier, even though he still had Moss to bail him out. To be only mid-tier, when you are throwing to Randy Moss in his prime, and the blocking is at least average, means you really aren't all that good. That's what would concern me about Cousins, the inherent talent doesn't leap out at you, and there isn't any evidence that he handles adversity well.

Having said that, he;s shown a lot more than some guys who have gotten big contracts, so I'd expect him to as well. Also, given he rolled the dice last year, I wouldn't be shocked to see him do it again. If he has another good year, a 3rd franchise tag would set the Redshins back about 34 million, I think. At that point, Cousins would be guaranteed north of 80 million in career earnings, and would only be 30 years old, as a UFA who could never be tagged again. If the Redskins make a good long term offer next of season, Cousins would be reasonable to take it, but it would be really neat to see a NFL qb, still relatively young, coming off 4 straight good seasons, 80 million in the bank, as a UFA who could never be tagged again. Think about what unusual provisions he might demand!

by jackiel :: Sat, 03/11/2017 - 4:59pm

It's pretty obvious that the Skins don't think Cousins is a top QB. No other top QB in recent memory has been treated this way. If they really liked him, they would've signed him last year. If they get a nice offer of draft picks, he's gone.

I think Washington is playing this pretty well actually. If you like but don't love the player, then there's nothing wrong with renting his services for a few years without blowing up your salary structure with long-term guaranteed bonus money. It's not like the team receives refunds from the league for not using cap space. Would you rather be Washington, which can move on from Cousins whenever they want with no negative repercussions, or Houston, which had to gift the Browns a 2nd round pick to get rid of Osweiler's high 2017 cap number?

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 3:22pm

RB can have a lot 'longer' career when 25% of their touches and contributions to the offense come on receptions.

The standard is the standard!

by herewegobrownie... :: Thu, 03/02/2017 - 8:11am

Browns decline to tag WR/sometime QB Terrelle Pryor but want to negotiate an extension.

by Will Allen :: Thu, 03/02/2017 - 12:19pm

Pryor should go sign a 1 year deal with the Patriots, for not the max money he can squeeze out, but with an agreement to not be franchised next off-season.

by dryheat :: Fri, 03/03/2017 - 10:21am

I'm not sure there's any room at that inn.