WASHINGTON — Grant Paulsen and Danny Rouhier proposed a wild theory about what might be keeping the Redskins from offering Kirk Cousins an acceptable long-term deal.
The 106.7 The Fan midday show looked to a quote from team president Bruce Allen earlier this week, which stood out like a sore thumb as Doug Williams was introduced in his new and improved role as Senior VP of Player Personnel.
“One of the things we wanted to do this offseason from the beginning was find out what we did wrong,” Allen told reporters. “We should not have lost the last game of the season, and from that Giant game on, the direction of this organization was we have to get better. We have to find out ways to win that game when we have that opportunity.”
Could the Redskins’ Week 17 loss to the Giants — which eliminated their playoff hopes in 2016 — actually be the reason Cousins isn’t under contract long term?
“One week before that game, the Redskins scored 41 and blew the Bears out by 20 points,” Paulsen said Friday. “Then they lost to the Giants. It’s all Bruce Allen talks about. Goose cares so much about that Week 17 loss. And he should — it kept them from the playoffs, the Giants were playing backups. It was a miserable game.”
“Goose has been so motivated by that game — which is fine — but quick to bring it up all offseason,” he went on to say. “And we want to bring up whether or not the loss to the Giants is why Kirk Cousins doesn’t have a contract right now. Because a decision based on a game, or a couple games, is a bad idea for me, and it’s bad business, but I don’t think that that is why he has not gotten a deal.”
“I don’t think it’s the reason,” Rouhier said. “But I think it’s a reason.”
Rouhier’s theory begins on the grounds that the Redskins remain in disbelief that Cousins is worth so much, and the organization is stuck in some permanent state of denial of the fact it helped drive up the quarterback’s price tag simply by franchise-tagging him in consecutive years.
“It’s the same with a house,” Rouhier said. “You don’t think it should cost a million [dollars], but it costs a million. Keep trying to get it for 650 [thousand]. It’s not gonna happen. This is what it costs. They made this market because of their multiple franchise tags. This is what it costs. There should be no debate about that. Period. End of story.”
Because of this self-denial, Rouhier believes the organization finds reason to confirm its own bias going into each negotiation period.
“Because remember,” he said, “They used to say, ‘He can’t play because he throws too many picks.’ He was Johnny Section 420 with everyone else. I’m talking about Bruce and Dan: ‘He throws too many picks. We can’t pay this for him.’ Not for anyone, for him.”
“I think it’s because of that Carolina game, which, if they had won that, things would have looked completely different,” he said. “And I think because of that Giants game. Really the Giants one, when they had a chance, they were moving the football down the field, down a field goal, and Cousins scrambled and threw that interception.
“I think that bothers those fanboys so flipping badly that they cannot move past it. And that’s coloring their evaluation. They can’t do the 16-game sample. They can’t include the Green Bay game. They can’t include how good he was against Philadelphia, leading them back with the late charge, the Dallas game where they couldn’t stop anybody on two-and-a-half days’ rest, where he was awesome, and Jordan Reed played hurt and he was awesome. They cannot get past that Giants game in terms of their evaluation.”