Redskins GM explains why they didn't sign Cousins...

[www.cbssports.com]

Deadlines usually spur action, but there was nothing happening with the Redskins and Kirk Cousins when it came down to Friday's deadline for teams to sign franchise-tag players to long-term deals.

Washington was never willing to make the commitment Cousins' camp wanted, leaving the quarterback the opportunity to bet on himself in 2016. If he plays like he did last year, he'll be getting paid big bucks.

But there was another factor as well, according to GM Scot McCloughan in an interview on Sirius XM (as transcribed by the Washington Post): He wasn't willing to outlay the sort of capital required to lock in Cousins this offseason if it meant losing out on multiple football players at other positions.

"It's a very good question, and like I said, it's part of the business that I don't like at all, just because you want to take care of your own no matter what," McCloughan replied. "And there's a reason why you dofranchise them, because you respect their talent and their abilities. But the market's the market, and some teams will do certain things that throw the market off, so then you've got to step back and say, 'Okay, who do we have next year? [Are] there three to five to seven guys that we want to extend prior to the last year of their deal, or do we want to go after one and know we're going to lose three or four next year?'

"So it's a fine line, and like I said, it's tough, but that's why we do this," McCloughan went on. "It's the market. The NFL's a phenomenal, phenomenal entity, and the money's incredible. But the way I look at it is I want Kirk in a long-term deal, no doubt about it, but also I'm not gonna put our franchise in a situation where we're gonna lose three or four younger guys that I think are gonna be good football players for one guy. I won't do it. You know, that's just how it is.

"And the quarterback position's very, very important, but you know what, so is every other position. We need football players. We need multiple football players, not one."

McCloughan also confirmed the Redskins are basically demanding Cousins bet on himself, forcing him to try and replicate his 2015 success in a second consecutive season.

"The thing about it is, the cap goes up every year, and the market's the market," McCloughan said. "And especially the position Kirk plays, it's pricey, but you pay for production. You get paid to win. I told Kirk, I told his agent, I tell all of our players: It's not about the individual. It's the sum of the parts. We have 53 guys on this roster. We're gonna have 46 playing on Sundays. It's not about the one individual. Now, like I said, if you produce, as the Washington Redskins, we've got no problem paying you -- depending on what the market is. But you've got to also realize it's a team sport, it's not an individual sport."

There are plenty of people in Washington wondering if the Redskins made a mistake by not locking up Cousins. Not reaching a deal opens up the possibility of the quarterback playing another high-quality season and pushing his luck at hitting the free-agency market. He could take a 20 percent raise on another one-year contract in 2017 and then (more than likely) get to hit the market as a quarterback with an impressive résumé.

The sky is the limit contractually for someone on the right side of 30 in that situation.

But it's also possible Cousins takes a step back. He led the league in completion percentage (an impressive 69.8), threw for more than 4,000 yards and had 29 touchdowns against just 11 interceptions. If comes close to repeating last year and takes Washington back to the playoffs again, the debate about paying him will be moot because he will most assuredly get paid a lot of money by someone.