Kirk Cousins and his Coming King-Sized Contract
by Steve Thomas
First of all, I apologize for the bad alliteration in the title to this article. It is inexcusable on my part to use this sort of outstanding grammatical tool in such a poor fashion. So forgive me; I will just take a moment to find another, vastly more appropriate opening….wait, why am I rambling so much? The alliteration is actually pretty unimportant. This is supposed to be a good, fun article, a discussion about the type of contract that the new Redskins quarterback, Kirk Cousins, might get from our favorite team. As you all know, 2015 was the final year of his four year rookie contract signed in 2012. I am rambling because the issue of the team re-signing Cousins, or not re-signing Cousins, is not nearly as simple as it sounds. When it comes to quarterback contracts, it is complicated marriage of market value, long-term salary cap planning, guaranteed money, franchise tags, team needs, and player leverage. Kirk Cousins, in particular, is an even more complicated case because the team has only seen one year of him as a full time starter under head coach Jay Gruden’s system. Trying to distill this question down to a manageable, clear, and understandable column is a tall task, and I seriously question whether I have succeeded. We have heard from some Team Kirk charter members who would essentially give Cousins a blank check to keep him here in Washington (we like him, he’s growing on us, but come back to reality, please), and we have also heard from some still bitter members of Team Griffin (it’s over here, folks; no matter what you want or think, it’s over) who want to put Cousins on the first Greyhound bus out of town. The best answer, as usual, is somewhere in between those two extremes. For purposes of this endeavor, I am operating under the assumption that the Redskins have a strong desire to retain his services as the team’s quarterback for the foreseeable future, because every indication from the team is that this is the thinking of both Jay Gruden and general manager Scot McCloughan. We can debate the value of that basic premise in another forum, but that is the foundation for this exercise. What I will therefore do here is attempt to set the parameters of a contract that both Kirk and the team might accept. Fair warning: we are about to drown in numbers, so get ready and pay attention.
There will be a quiz at the end. However, because this is such a tedious, data-driven project and some of you will not want to grind through to the conclusion, this is the executive summary: what I think could be a reasonable contract between the Redskins and Kirk Cousins is 5 years, approximately $85M total value, $40M guaranteed, structured for a cap hit of beginning in the $13-15M million range and increasing to almost $20M per year by the end of the deal, but with the Redskins being able to terminate the contract in year 2 without a cap penalty. The details of how I arrived at those numbers are below.
The Options
The Redskins have two basic options this offseason in order to retain Cousins’ services: (1) place a franchise tag on him, or (2) reach an agreement on a multi-year contract.
The Franchise Tag
I will avoid a long franchise tag discussion due to the length of the rest of this column, so here it is in summary: in order to keep Cousins in Washington in the event that the parties cannot reach agreement on a long-term contract, the Redskins apparently intend on placing a franchise tag on him for the 2016 season. The franchise tag, when signed by the player, is a one-year deal. There are two types franchise tags, the “exclusive” tag and the “non-exclusive” tag. Under the “exclusive” tag, the player is not allowed to negotiate with any other team and can only either (1) sign the franchise tag contract, (2) sign a long-term deal with his team, or (3) stop playing NFL football. The Dallas Cowboys placed wide receiver Dez Bryant under an “exclusive” tag last year, but reached an agreement on a long-term deal before the season. The salary for this type of tag is the average of the top 5 contracts in the NFL for his position group or 120 percent of the prior year’s salary of the player, whichever is greater. This is projected to be $19,748,000 for quarterbacks in 2016. The “non-exclusive” tag gives players the right to negotiate with other teams; however, the player’s current team has the right to match any offers and will receive two first round picks from the signing team if the player does leave. The salary for a player who signs his “non-exclusive” franchise tag is the average salary of the top 5 contracts in the NFL by position group over the last 5 years, or 120 percent of the prior year’s salary of the player, whichever is greater, which is slightly less than the “exclusive” tag salary. Either way, the salary number for Kirk Cousins under a franchise tag would be very large, but for only one year, making it an attractive option for the Redskins in the event a deal is not reached.
Long Term Contract Options
We can take a look at some contract and perforamance data for quarterbacks around the league in order to be able to get a feel for what a long-term contract between the Redskins and Cousins might look like. First up is a look at the NFL’s elite franchise quarterbacks.
The “Elite”
This chart shows the details of the contracts of the ten NFL quarterbacks who are generally considered to be the “elite” franchise quarterbacks for whom every team is looking:
| Name | 1st yr of Contract | No. years | Total Value | Guaranteed $ | % Guaranteed | Ave. Ann. Salary | Cap hits | Dead Money | % of Cap |
| Brees, D. (NO) | 2012 | 5 | $100M | $40M | 40 | $20M | ’12: $10.4M ’13: $17.4M ’14: $18.4M ’15: $23.8M ’16: $30M |
’12: $40M ’13: $29.6M ‘14: $22.225M ’15: $33.8M ’16: $10M |
’12: 8.75 ’13: 13.95 ’14: 13.89 ’15: 16.65 ’16: 19.48 |
| Brady, Tom (NE) | 2015 | 3 | $27M | $24M (injury) | 89 | $9M | ’15: $14M ’16: $15M ’17: $16M |
’15: $18M ’16: $12M ’17: $6M |
’15: 9.91 ’16: 9.74 |
| Manning, E. (NYG) | 2016 | 4 | $84M | $54M init; additional $11M in ‘17 | 64 / 77 | $21M | ’16: $24.2M ’17: $19.7M ’18: $22.2M ’19: $23.2M |
’16: $42.3M ’17: $18.6M ’18: $12.4M ’19: $6.2M |
’16: 15.71 |
| Manning, P. (DEN) | 2015 | 2 | $34M | $15M | 44 | $17M | ’15: $17.5M ’16: $21.5M |
’15: $20M ’16: $2.5M |
’15: 11.94 ’16: 13.96 |
| Palmer, C. (AZ) | 2015 | 3 (4th yr voids) | $49.5M | $20.5M | 41 | $16.5M | ’15: $7.375M ’16: $17.075M ’17: $20.675M |
’15: $20.5M ’16: $13.125M ’17: $8.75M |
’15: 4.94 ’16: 11.09 |
| Rivers, P. (SD) | 2016 | 4 | $83.25M | $65M | 78 | $20.8125M | ’16: $21M ’17: $18.5M ’18: $19.5M ’19: $20.5M |
’16: $18M ’17: $13.5M ’18: $9M ’19: $4.5M |
’16: 13.64 |
| Rodgers, A. (GB) | 2015 | 5 | $110M | $54M | 49 | $22M | ’15: $18.25M ’16: $19.25M ’17: $20.3M ’18: $20.9M ’19: $21.1M |
’15: $29.95M ’16: $13.3M ’17: $6.65M ’18: $0 ’19: $0 |
’15: 12.87 ’16: 12.50 |
| Roethlisberger, B. (PIT) | 2016 | 4 | $87.4M | $31M | 35 | $21.85M | ’16: $23.95M ’17: $18.2M ’18: $23.2M ’19: $23.2M |
’16: $24.8M ’17: $18.6M ’18: $12.4M ’19: $6.2M |
’16: 15.55 |
| Romo, T. (DAL) | 2014 | 6 | $108M | $55M | 51 | $18M | ’14: $11.773M ’15: $14.973M ’16: $20.835M ’17: $24.7M ’18: $25.2M ’19: $23.7M |
’14: $49.181M ’15: $45.908M ’16: $31.935M ’17: $19.6M ’18: $8.9M ’19: $3.2M |
’14: 9.06 ’15: 10.86 ’16: 13.53 |
| Wilson, R. (SEA) | 2016 | 4 | $87.6M | $61.542M | 70 | $21.9M | ’16: $18.542M ’17: $18.8M ’18: $21.7M ’19: $23.2M |
’16: $24.8M ’17: $18.6M ’18: $12.4M ’19: $6.2M |
’16: 12.04 |
| Averages | — | 4 | $77M | $43M | 57.4 | $18.8M | $19.74M | $16.3M | 12.13 |
The final row in this chart shows the average number of years, total contract amount, total guaranteed dollars, percent guaranteed, average annual value, average cap hit, average amount of dead money per year, and average percentage cap hit for all of the “elite” quarterbacks. Now, some of these player have contracts that are outliers for players of their stature – Tom Brady, for example, has a much smaller contract in every area, and Peyton Manning only has a 2 year deal due to his age. Furthermore, the average data points for total contract value is not a particularly useful or insightful statistic due to the wide variance in the length of contract between the players in this category. Looking at the most important numbers that can be compared across the NFL, the average elite, franchise quarterback has a contract of 4 years in length, guarantees approximately 57.4 percent of the total value, has an average annual salary of $18.8M, has a an average cap hit of $19.74M per year, and average of $16.3M in dead money, and takes 12.13 percent of the salary cap per year. Seven of these ten contracts are structured so that the cap hit exceeds the amount of dead money by year 2. The Brees and Romo contracts are the only ones that get to year 4 before hitting the cap hit / dead money break point. This is important because it means that the team can terminate the contract without being assigned an amount against the salary cap that is actually greater than the the amount they are saving by terminating the contract. You will note that the variance for the dead money numbers is extremely wide: many of these contract are structured so that the first two years have extremely large amounts of dead money, with the number falling off dramatically in later years.
This chart contains the major career statistics for these same 10 “elite” quarterbacks:
| Name | Yrs in NFL | Career QB Rating | Career Comp % | Career TD % | Career Int % | No. Pro Bowls | No. All Pro/MVP | No. Playoff Gms | No. SB started/won |
| Brees, D. (NO) | 15 | 95.8 | 66.4 | 5.3 | 2.5 | 9 | 04/01/00 | 11 | 01/01/16 |
| Brady, Tom (NE) | 16 | 96.4 | 63.6 | 5.5 | 1.9 | 11 | 03/02/16 | 29 | 06/04/16 |
| Manning, E. (NYG) | 12 | 83.5 | 59.3 | 4.7 | 3.2 | 3 | 0 / 0 | 11 | 02/02/16 |
| Manning, P. (DEN) | 18 | 96.5 | 65.3 | 5.7 | 2.7 | 14 | 10/05/16 | 24 | 03/01/16 |
| Palmer, C. (AZ) | 13 | 88.1 | 62.7 | 4.8 | 3 | 3 | 01/01/00 | 2 | 0 / 0 |
| Rivers, P. (SD) | 12 | 95.5 | 64.8 | 5.3 | 2.5 | 5 | 0 / 0 | 9 | 0 / 0 |
| Rodgers, A. (GB) | 11 | 104.1 | 65.1 | 6.4 | 1.6 | 5 | 03/02/16 | 13 | 01/01/16 |
| Roethlisberger, B. (PIT) | 12 | 94 | 64.1 | 5 | 2.7 | 4 | 0 / 0 | 16 | 03/02/16 |
| Romo, T. (DAL) | 13 | 97.1 | 65.3 | 5.7 | 2.7 | 4 | 01/01/00 | 6 | 0 / 0 |
| Wilson, R. (SEA) | 4 | 101.8 | 64.7 | 6.1 | 2 | 3 | 0 / 0 | 9 | 02/01/16 |
| Averages | 12.6 | 95.3 | 64.1 | 5.5 | 2.5 | 6.1 | 2.2 / 0.9 | 13 | 1.8 / 1.2 |
Take a look at the average performance for an “elite” quarterback – average of 12.6 years in the NFL (with Russell Wilson bringing down the average), a career quarterback rating of 95.3, completion percentage of 64.1, 5.5 touchdown percentage, 2.5 interception percentage, with a significant number of playoff games; furthermore, most of these players have won at least one Super Bowl and have been selected to at least one Pro Bowl, with a few having won MVP awards. This is the profile of the truly elite NFL quarterback.
The “Good”
The following chart shows the contract data for the quarterbacks who are roughly considered to be in the next tier down from the NFL’s group of elite quarterbacks – this is the group of “good”, but not “great” players who can lead a team and are borderline franchise quarterbacks:
| Name | 1st yr of Contract | No. years | Total Value | Guaranteed $ | % Guaranteed | Ave. Ann. Salary | Cap hits | Dead Money | % of Cap |
| Cutler, J. (CHI) | 2014 | 7 | $126M | $54M | 43 | $18.1M | ’14: $18.5M ’15: $16.5M ’16: $17M ’17: $16M ’18: $17M ’19: $20M ’20: $21.7M |
’14: $38M ’15: $29.5M ’16: $13M ’17: $2M ’18: $1M ’19: $0 ’20: $0 |
’14: 14.01 ’15: 11.66 ’16: 11.04 |
| Dalton, A. (CIN) | 2015 | 6 | $96M | $17M | 18 | $16M | ’15: $9.6M ’16: $13.1M ’17: $15.7M ’18: $16.3M ’19: $16.2M ’20: $17.7M |
’15: $13.8M ’16: $7.2M ’17: $4.8M ’18: $2.4M ’19: $0 ’20: $0 |
’15: 6.67 ’16: 8.51 |
| Flacco, J. (BAL) | 2013 | 6 | $126M | $29M | 23 | $20.1M | ’13: $6.8M ’14: $14.8M ’15: $14.55M ’16: $28.55M ’17: $31.15M ’18: $24.75M |
’13: $29M ’14: $38.2M ’15: $36.4M ’16: $25.85M ’17: $15.3M ’18: $4.75M |
’13: 5.25 ’14: 11.8 ’15: 10.3 ’16: 18.54 |
| Ryan, M. (ATL) | 2014 | 5 | $103.75M | $42M | 40 | $20.75M | ’14: $17.5M ’15: $19.5M ’16: $23.75M ’17: $23.75M ’18: $21.65M |
’14: $41.5M ’15: $33.9M ’16: 18.4M ’17: $10.4M ’18: $2.4M |
’14: 13.11 ’15: 14.35 ’16: 15.42 |
| Smith, A. (KC) | 2015 | 4 | $68M | $45M | 66 | $17M | ’15: $15.6M ’16: $17.8M ’17: $16.9M ’18: $20.6M |
’15: $40.5M ’16: $24.9M ’17: $7.2M ’18: $3.6M |
’15: 11.03 ’16: 11.56 |
| Stafford, M. (DET) |
2015 | 3 | $53M | $41.5M | 78 | $17.67M | ’15: $17.72125M ’16: $22.5M ’17: $22M |
’15: $27.2213M ’16: $11M ’17: $5.5M |
’15: 12.37 ’16: 14.61 |
| Averages | — | 5.2 | $95.46M | $38.1M | 44.7 | $18.27M | $18.55M | $15.73M | 11.89 |
These quarterbacks have contract numbers that are, on average, still large burdens on the salary caps for their respective teams, for several seasons: average length of 5.2 years (brought down by Matthew Stafford’s three year deal), 44.7 percent guaranteed, $18.27M average annual salary, average cap hit of $18.55M with $15.73 in dead money, and an average of 11.89 in cap space. One of these contracts (Flacco) does not cross the cap hit / dead money break point until year 4, whereas three of them reach that point in the third year and two (Dalton and Stafford) hit that mark in year two.
This chart contains the major career stats for these same 10 “good” quarterbacks:
| Name | Yrs in NFL | Career QB Rating | Career Comp % | Career TD % | Career Int % | No. Pro Bowls | No. All Pro/MVP | No. Playoff Gms | No. SB started/won |
| Cutler, J. (CHI) | 10 | 86 | 62 | 4.7 | 3.2 | 1 | 0 / 0 | 2 | 0 / 0 |
| Dalton, A. (CIN) | 5 | 88.4 | 62.3 | 5 | 2.9 | 2 | 0 / 0 | 4 | 0 / 0 |
| Flacco, J. (BAL) | 8 | 84.7 | 60.9 | 4 | 2.5 | 0 | 0 / 0 | 15 | 01/01/16 |
| Ryan, M. (ATL) | 8 | 90.9 | 64.3 | 4.5 | 2.4 | 3 | 0 / 0 | 5 | 0 / 0 |
| Smith, A. (KC) | 11 | 84.5 | 61 | 3.9 | 2.3 | 1 | 0 / 0 | 4 | 0 / 0 |
| Stafford, M. (DET) |
7 | 85.8 | 60.9 | 4.4 | 2.7 | 1 | 0 / 0 | 2 | 0 / 0 |
| Averages | 8.2 | 86.7 | 61.9 | 4.4 | 2.7 | 1.3 | 0 / 0 | 5.3 | 02/01/00 |
Let’s be honest about who these quarterbacks are: they are quarterbacks who their respective franchises hoped are or would become franchise quarterbacks, but had enough question marks to result in a twinge of doubt. For example, Jay Cutler and Joe Flacco are clearly paid like quarterbacks in the “elite” group, but have not performed in an equivalent manner. This group of quarterbacks hold an average career rating of 86.7, completion percentage of 61.9, 4.4 touchdown percentage, and a career interception percentage of 2.7. Only one of these quarterbacks, Joe Flacco (who, it must be said, considers himself elite, and he may be correct; these categories I created are not set in stone), has played in more than 5 playoff games or played in a Super Bowl.
Quarterback Class of 2010/2011/2012
Finally, this next chart shows the contract data for those quarterbacks from the 2010, 2011, and 2012 draft classes who have already received a second contract from the team that drafted them and stayed with that team:
| Name | 1st yr of Contract | No. years | Total Value | Guaranteed $ | % Guaranteed | Ave. Ann. Salary | Cap hits | Dead Money | % of Cap |
| Dalton, A. (CIN) | 2015 | 6 | $96M | $17M | 18 | $16M | ’15: $9.6M ’16: $13.1M ’17: $15.7M ’18: $16.3M ’19: $16.2M ’20: $17.7M |
’15: $13.8M ’16: $7.2M ’17: $4.8M ’18: $2.4M ’19: $0 ’20: $0 |
’15: 6.67 ’16: 8.51 |
| Kapernick, C. (SF) | 2015 | 6 | $114M | $61M | 54 | $19M | ’15: $15.266M ’16: $15.891M ’17: $19.366M ’18: $18.866M ’19: $21.2M ’20: $23.4M |
’15: $20.663M ’16: $7.397M ’17: $4.932M ’18: $2.466M ’19: $0 ’20: $0 |
’15: 11.16 ’16: 10.32 |
| Newton, C. (CAR) | 2016 | 5 | $103.8M | $60M | 58 | $20.76M | ’16: $19.5M ’17: $20.167M ’18: $21.5M ’19: $23.2M ’20: $21.1M |
’16: $18M ’17: $ 13.5M ’18: $9M ’19: $4.5M ’20: $2M |
’16: 12.66 |
| Tannehill, R. (MIA) | 2017 | 4 | $77M | $45M | 58 | $19.25M | ’17: $20.3M ’18: $19.8M ’19: $21.05M ’20: $19.522M |
’17: $6.9M ’18: $4.6M ’19: $2.3M ’20: $0 |
— |
| Wilson, R. (SEA) | 2016 | 4 | $87.6M | $61.542M | 70 | $21.9M | ’16: $18.542M ’17: $18.8M ’18: $21.7M ’19: $23.2M |
’16: $24.8M ’17: $18.6M ’18: $12.4M ’19: $6.2M |
’16: 12.04 |
| Averages | — | 5 | $95.7M | $48.9M | 51.6 | $19.38M | $16.13M | $7.46M | 10.23 |
The first thing that is immediately obvious is that no 2010 quarterbacks are included – this is because 2010 was a bad draft year for quarterbacks, with Sam Bradford and Washington’s own Colt McCoy probably being the best of that group. None are still with, and are starting for, the teams that drafted them. Regardless, the contract profile for this group is a five year contract with 51.6 percent guaranteed, $19.38M average annual salary, $16.13M average cap hit, $7.46M in dead money, with an 10.23 percent of the cap being taken. Importantly, all five of these contracts give the teams an “out” in year 2, because the salary cap hit exceeds the dead money by year 2 in all five contracts.
This chart contains the major career data for these same 2010/2011/2012 quarterbacks:
| Name | Yrs in NFL | Gms Played | Career QB Rating | Career Comp % | Career TD % | Career Int % | No. Pro Bowls | No. All Pro/MVP | No. Playoff Gms | No. SB started/won |
| Dalton, A. (CIN) | 5 | 81 | 88.4 | 62.3 | 5 | 2.9 | 2 | 0 / 0 | 4 | 0 / 0 |
| Kaepernick, C. (SF) | 5 | 63 | 88.4 | 59.9 | 4.1 | 1.9 | 0 | 0 / 0 | 6 | 01/01/00 |
| Newton, C. (CAR) | 5 | 81 | 88.2 | 59.5 | 4.8 | 2.6 | 3 | 01/01/16 | 3 | 0 / 0 |
| Tannehill, R. (MIA) | 4 | 64 | 85.2 | 61.9 | 3.9 | 2.4 | 0 | 0 / 0 | 0 | 0 / 0 |
| Wilson, R. (SEA) | 4 | 73 | 101.8 | 64.7 | 6.1 | 2 | 3 | 0 / 0 | 9 | 02/01/16 |
| Averages | 4.6 | 72.4 | 90.4 | 61.7 | 4.8 | 2.4 | 1.6 | .2 / .2 | 4.4 | .6 / .2 |
The profile of a quarterback who received a second contract from his team is as follows: 72.4 games played, career quarterback rating of 90.1 (with Russell Wilson being the outlier who brought up the average; all 4 of the others have ratings in the upper 80s); completion percentage of 61.7, touchdown percentage of 4.8, and interception percentage of 2.4.
Kirk Cousins Comparables
These are Kirk Cousins’ career stats as compared to the average stats for each of the three groups of quarterbacks in the same categories as shown in the data above:
| Name | Yrs in NFL | Gms Played | Career QB Rating | Career Comp % | Career TD % | Career Int % | No. Pro Bowls | No. All Pro/MVP | No. Playoff Gms | No. SB started/won |
| Cousins, K. (WAS) | 4 | 32 | 91.3 | 65.2 | 4.9 | 3.2 | 0 | 0 / 0 | 2 | 0 / 0 |
| Average “elite” | 12.6 | — | 95.3 | 64.1 | 5.5 | 2.5 | 6.1 | 2.2 / 0.9 | 13 | 1.8 / 1.2 |
| Average “good” | 8.2 | — | 86.7 | 61.9 | 4.4 | 2.7 | 1.3 | 0 / 0 | 5.3 | 02/01/00 |
| Average 2010/11/12 quarterbacks | 4.6 | 72.4 | 90.4 | 61.7 | 4.8 | 2.4 | 1.6 | .2 / .2 | 4.4 | .6 / .2 |
The first thing that jumps out of this chart is that Kirk Cousins does not really compare to the group of “elite” quarterbacks in any way: experience, quarterback rating, touchdown and interception percentages, pro bowls, playoffs, or Super Bowls; similarly, while his career numbers compare to the “good” group, his number of NFL years, playoff and pro bowl experience does not. He does, however, compare favorably to both the “good” and “2010/2011/2012” groups in most stats except two: number of games played and interception percentage (which, as we all know, took a dramatic turn for the better this year). It could be fairly said, then, based on this data, that if Cousins had posted these career numbers over two more seasons worth of games played, he without question would be due to receive a contract that compared favorably with or even exceeded the average 2010/2011/2012, even despite his interception percentage being the highest of any quarterback in this group. At it stands, however, the fact is that his sample size of performance is significantly less than his peers in this group, and this will stand at the heart of the debate between the Redskins’ contract negotiators and Cousins’ agent. Regarding Cousins’ number of games played, it is noteworthy that (1) Andy Dalton and Cam Newton are both 2011 draftees, one year earlier than Cousins, and (2) these players signed their deals at fewer games than are listed in this chart. Nonetheless, it is inarguable that Cousins has played far fewer games than anyone on this list; however, the gap is not as pronounced as is reflected here.
Kirk Cousins Contract
This chart compares the average “elite quarterback” contract to the average “good quarterback” contract and the average “2010/11/12 quarterback” contract:
| QB Group | No. years | Total Value | Guaranteed $ | % Guaranteed | Ave. Ann. Salary | Cap hits | Dead Money | % of Cap |
| Elite | 4 | $77M | $43M | 57.4 | $18.8M | $19.74M | $16.3M | 12.13 |
| Good | 5.2 | $95.46M | $38.1M | 44.7 | $18.27M | $18.55M | $15.73M | 11.89 |
| 11/12/10 | 5 | $95.7M | $48.9M | 51.6 | $19.38M | $16.13M | $7.46M | 10.23 |
The important differences in the average contracts for each of these three categories are apparent: while the average annual salaries are fairly standardized, the average cap hits decend from the “elite” group, to the “good” group, to the “2010/2011/2012” group, as does the dead money and the average percentage of the cap. In particular, the average dead money for the “2010/2011/2012” group is significantly less, which means that teams structured those contracts to be much more team friendly, and they can get away with doing so due to the relative youth of those players. By placing Cousins within the “2010/2011/2012” group on the basis of his career numbers, but taking into account the risk the team is taking by virtue of his relative lack of experience and history of performance when compared to the other quarterbacks in that group, as well as the natural annual increases in the salary cap, the data shows that fans should expect Cousins to receive (assuming an agreement is reached and the team does not franchise tag him) a five year contract with a large total value, likely in the $80M range, but with cap hits exceeding the dead money in year 2 and an average cap space of less than 10 percent per year. Therefore, I believe his contract may look like this: 5 years, $85M total value, $40M guaranteed, structured for a cap hit of beginning in the $13-15M million range and increasing to almost $20M per year by the end of the deal, but the Redskins able to terminate the contract in year 2. If you see a contract that has higher cap usage or guaranteed dollar amount, or is one that the Redskins cannot terminate without penalty in the second year, it is likely that the Redskins place a higher value on Kirk Cousins than his performance and experience indicates and therefore intentionally overpaid.
What are your thoughts?