Skip to content

Need to Know: The Redskins have never signed a tagged player long term

Jul 14, 2016, 5:45 AM EDT


Here is what you need to know on this Thursday, July 14, 14 days before the Washington Redskins start training camp in Richmond.


—The Redskins last played a game 186 days ago. It will be 60 days until they host the Steelers in their 2016 season opener.

Days until: Franchise tag contract deadline 1; Preseason opener @ Falcons 28; Final roster cut 51

Long-term Cousins deal off of the tag would be a first for the Redskins

—I’m publishing this about 36 hours before the deadline for Kirk Cousins to sign a long-term contract with the Redskins. I would think that if something is going to happen that we’ll start hearing some rumblings of talk and movement at some point today. If we hear nothing but crickets today it’s hard to imagine anything happening on Friday.

—The Redskins are taking a risk by not locking up Cousins this year but it’s a risk they have taken before. In 2014 they put the franchise tag on Brian Orakpo. He was coming off of his best season since his 2009 rookie year when his contract ran out. He was tagged and signed the tender. The Redskins never made a serious long-term contract offer to Orakpo and the deadline came and went. Had Orakpo duplicated his 2013 season (10 sacks and his first career interception) they would have had to pay high premium dollars to keep him. But in 2014 he had just a half of a sack before getting going on injured reserve after seven games. While you hate to say that anybody “wins” when a player gets injured, it turns out that the Redskins made the right move. Orakpo left as a free agent and Washington drafted Preston Smith.

—The Redskins have never signed a tagged player to a long-term contract. Their first franchised player was LB Wilber Marshall, who ended up with the Oilers after a contentious debate over compensation. A few years later transition-tagged CB Tom Carter signed an offer sheet with the Bears and the Redskins chose not to match. DT Sean Gilbert sat out a year rather than play on the franchise tag in 1997. He was tagged again in 1998 and eventually signed with the Panthers, giving the Redskins two first-round picks. CB Champ Bailey was on the tag for a few weeks before being traded to the Broncos in 2004. They didn’t use the tag again until 2012, when TE Fred Davis was franchised. He suffered a torn Achilles in Week 7, signed a one-year deal to return the next year, and hasn’t played since. Then came Orakpo.

—This doesn’t mean that Cousins isn’t long for Ashburn. For one thing, what happened with Marshall over 20 years ago has no bearing on what will take place in 2016. But the scarcity of quality quarterbacks in the NFL today makes Cousins more of a priority than the other tagged players were (although it must be said that CB’s like Bailey don’t grown on trees). I don’t think they’ll let him get away. If they don’t sign him by tomorrow at 4 p.m. they will get something done next year. It may cost them more but barring a total collapse in his performance they will pay the going rate and keep Cousins under center into the next decade.

Update: I left one tagged Redskin off the list. In 1995 they gave the transition tag to kicker Chip Lohmiller. The Redskins and Lohmiller never agreed on a contract and in August they rescinded the tag and let him go.

Tandler on Twitter

Worried about the Redskins’ schedule? Maybe you should be but schedules that look tough in July often look different when the games are played.

In case you missed it 

  1. redskins12thman - Jul 14, 2016 at 5:57 AM

    If Cousins is franchised, it’s hard to imagine any scenario where the Redskins would not want to sign him long-term. And if they didn’t want Cousins, the Redskins could easily identify several teams who would easily want to take Cousins off their hands.

  2. abanig - Jul 14, 2016 at 7:05 AM

    You know I was thinking that, how sad

  3. abanig - Jul 14, 2016 at 7:06 AM

    Wouldn’t surprise me for Cousins to go to Denver next year if the skins don’t sign him. Better organization, better coaching staff, better wrs & better defense. Kirk could go there and win a Super Bowl in a few years.

    • RuddyJamesDIO - Jul 14, 2016 at 7:17 AM

      And your a Redskin fan?

      • abanig - Jul 14, 2016 at 7:52 AM

        Diehard, but I’m also a realist. When an owner has shown for four years that he doesn’t love you.

        Cousins said he wanted to be where he was wanted.

        Well, are the Redskins showing they want him? Are they showing their commitment to him?

        So, after the owner & his president Bruce Allen don’t show a player the love for 4 years and when you become a free agent, they franchise you instead of paying you “market value.” I question if he’ll return after this year unless they franchise him again “locking in his services for sure” at $24 M and pay him like a $100 M deal next year.

        • skins1970 - Jul 14, 2016 at 9:23 AM

          Yeah but Dan is not making the call on Kirk Scot is. If he thinks Kirk is good enough to give a along term contract to he will pay him if not he won’t it’s as easy as that.

        • Rich Tandler - Jul 14, 2016 at 10:17 AM

          With that amount of money involved, the guy signing the check will have to sign off on it. Nobody seems to know how much influence Snyder is having here but don’t doubt for a second that he could veto any deal.

        • abanig - Jul 14, 2016 at 12:16 PM

          Dan still has some say and he signs the checks.

          Scot’s & Jay’s jobs are to convince Snyder and Allen that Kirk is worth the money.

          Now, we’ve already heard Scot pretty much label Kirk as a system QB with a quote one time in the media. That was not a good answer he gave that day several months ago and I knew Kirk heard it!

        • Prospero - Jul 14, 2016 at 11:26 AM

          Seriously? Show me any team that gives priority attention to it’s back-up quarterback. The team was trying to get it’s first round pick to be it’s franchise. That had to be their focus. It didn’t work. Now it’s Cousin’s turn and he’ll get the attention not the current backups. If he chooses to be petty, like some fans, then he’s not as smart as I think he is. I’ll let him play under the Franchise tag and if he’s great against this schedule then he’ll be worth whatever extra millions they have to pay.

        • abanig - Jul 14, 2016 at 12:14 PM

          Look I don’t disagree that he was stuck behind Griffin but he did say what he said and the Redskins are still playing games and not offering him a market value contract.

          That “could” rub him the wrong way. It certainly would rub me the wrong way if I was a player and just came of one of – if not the best – individual statistical season for a quarterback in team history in my first year as a starter.

        • Prospero - Jul 14, 2016 at 1:08 PM

          Please let us know what the “market level contact” is that the Redskins are not offering Cousin’s or what he’s asking for that the Redskins disagreed with.

        • abanig - Jul 14, 2016 at 1:16 PM

          Well market value for someone who played as well as he did last year is at least 5 years, $90 M with $50 M guaranteed, $30 M signing bonus

          They could play around with the $ in certain years like they did in Norman’s deal. Norman is going to make $20 M in 2017 to play CORNERBACK not, QUARTERBACK.

        • abanig - Jul 14, 2016 at 1:34 PM

          Questions emerge about who has Redskins final say in Kirk Cousins contract talks

          Anyone who thinks that Snyder won’t always be the one making the final decision is kidding himself on a huge contract like Kirk’s. It’s Dan’s team. I know most fans, including myself, don’t like that but he is the one who signs the checks and it’s clear he’s not willing to pay Cousins as much as he’s getting this season on a long term deal.

      • Dave b - Jul 14, 2016 at 2:12 PM

        Isn’t it funny how all pessimists paint themselves as “realists”.

    • Bob - Jul 14, 2016 at 8:20 AM

      Better receiver’s?

      • abanig - Jul 14, 2016 at 8:33 AM

        Denver? DeMarius Thomas & Emmanuel are pro bowl type wrs. Djax can be but last year he missed more than 1/2 the season and Garcon has seen a significant drop off in production going to from the Shanahan’s offense to Gruden’s mainly because he’s changed positions.

        • John - Jul 14, 2016 at 1:47 PM

          Yeah, while I like Garcon and Jackson, I’d go with D Thomas and E Sanders over our guys any day astthey are better all around receivers.

          Regarding Garcons production, his numbers are not down to a position change. Its a couple of things. Back in 2013, when he caught over 100 balls, he was the only receiving option (no Jackson, Reed or Crowder to throw the ball to) as well as losing some speed and being a short to mid level range posession receiver the other guys are going to catch a good number of those balls (Reed and Crowder caught 130+ last season).

          A similar situation to 1984, when Art Monk caught 106 balls. He could always catch 8-12 balls a game but in 1984 they had no other productive receiving threats.

        • abanig - Jul 14, 2016 at 1:51 PM

          Actually, it is also a position change. In 2012 & 2013, Morgan & Hank were the possession guy and Garcon played the role that Djax plays. Garcon had more deeper routes that he ran before Djax was signed and when he was in the Shanahan offense.

          That’s why he caught 14.4 YPC in 2012 & 11.9 in 2013. 2014 that dropped to 11.1 and last year 10.8.

        • John - Jul 14, 2016 at 2:53 PM

          Morgan and Hankerson were never the threats that Jackson and Crowder are. During 2013, Hankerson was in 14 games and Morgan played in 10 and lost his job. They combined for 50 catches. Neither they nor Garcon, if he was the “deep threat”, had much in the way of YPC. Garcon has also lost a step. Regardless of what position, he’ll still catch fewer balls as he has better options around him. That and Kirk is more of a distributor.

        • abanig - Jul 14, 2016 at 3:01 PM

          Well that wasn’t exactly my point. My point was that if you look at the yards per reception you can see that Garcon was the deep threat and I do know for a fact that he played the position that Djax now plays for us which has the Wr go on deeper routes.

          That fact is not debatable.

          It’s true he has gotten older and isn’t as fast as he was in 2012 but it’s also true that in 12 & 13 in Shanahan’s offense that he was sent on deeper patterns.

        • abanig - Jul 14, 2016 at 3:02 PM

          As far as his receptions go, last year and 2014 he was our receptions leader from the wide receiver position.

          Maybe that drops some this year but they use Garcon as the possession receiver. I still believe he’ll catch around 70 balls.

        • John - Jul 14, 2016 at 5:13 PM

          Garcon – 44 for 14.4 avg, long of 88, catch and run.
          Hankerson – 38 for 14.3 avg, long of 68.
          Morgan – 48 for 10.6 avg, long of 32.
          Moss – 41 for 14.0 avg, long of 77.
          Robinson – 11 for 21.5 avg, long of 68.


          Garcon – 113 for 11.9 avg, long of 53.
          Hankerson – 30 for 12.5 avg, long of 29.
          Morgan – 20 for 10.7 avg, long of 21.
          Moss – 42 for 10.8 avg, long of 28.
          Robinson – 18 for 20.3 avg, long of 62.

          The nature of the 2012 offense provided for a fair number of deeper balls off of read option play action. The only “deep threat” was Robinson but he was no starter. I remember Garcon getting a lot of 5 – 15 yd balls in those years as well as now.

    • wvredskins - Jul 14, 2016 at 12:32 PM

      better wr’s? lol. Well if he cant get it done with the crop of pass catchers we have, he isnt going to get it done anywhere.

      • abanig - Jul 14, 2016 at 12:43 PM

        It’s more the “whole package,” as I said someone else wanted to just argue about the Wr on the skins vs the Wrs on the Broncos.

        Thomas & Sanders are the best duo in the NFL and that was dealing with a noodle armed Manning the last two years and an extremely green Osweiler.

      • Trey Gregory - Jul 14, 2016 at 4:08 PM

        You’re just in denial of you don’t think Denver is a better all around team than Washignton.

        That actually is being a realist, not a pessimist. Being overly complimentary of your team and ignoring reality is called being biased, hyperbolic, and ignorant. See how that works?

    • Prospero - Jul 14, 2016 at 7:41 PM

      @abanig – You still haven’t said what Cousins is asking for or what the Redskins have offered. Without those figures you can’t argue that either the Redskins are or Cousins is being unreasonable.

      • bangkokben - Jul 14, 2016 at 8:18 PM

        There has been no reports since about a week or two after Osweiler and Bradford were signed. At that time it was reported that the Redskins initially offered $12 million average per year ((APY) but had gone up to $16 million APY after the other QB deals but that they were still $4 million apart. Since then, there has been no reported change.

      • Trey Gregory - Jul 14, 2016 at 8:36 PM

        And that initial low offer (less than what they extended RG3 for before the season) shows the team is playing some sort of low ball game with this. That’s an absurd number to start with. It’s not a good negotiation tactic, it’s insulting.

        And the exact numbers are less important than length of the contract and guaranteed money. Or how it’s structure to when Washington could cut Cousins for a minimal cap hit if it doesn’t work. There have been reports about where they are in general and we can ballpark that. Then, knowing each side’s interests, we can figure out close to what’s going on.

        We also know the potential ramifications of not getting a long term deal done. And that carries more importance than the exact numbers to some of us. Some people just want to see the deal done and move on.

      • abanig - Jul 14, 2016 at 9:39 PM

        Well I’m not in the negotiations. I can’t answer that bro. It has been reported by several people that the Redskins are lowballing Cousins though and are prepared to let him be the first QB in 11 years to play a season under the franchise tag.

  4. abanig - Jul 14, 2016 at 7:53 AM

    This isn’t new by the way, Snyder didn’t want to pay Trent Green or Brad Johnson on long term deals either.

    • Rich Tandler - Jul 14, 2016 at 8:01 AM

      Green left before Snyder actually owned the team. Casserly has often told the story of JKC’s board of trustees having zero idea about the cost of doing business in the NFL and refusing to approve a large expenditure to pay Green a signing bonus.

      He did want to go with Jeff George over Johnson. This time, however, there is no George as an alternative.

      • abanig - Jul 14, 2016 at 8:04 AM

        Oh ok. Do you think Snyder would have franchised or kept Green though?

  5. skinsgame - Jul 14, 2016 at 8:12 AM

    Thing is, there’s a new sheriff in town with Scot. He could blow it and continue the legacy, of course, but so far he’s been running a good show. He’s not infallible but the tag buys him time to evaluate the player and, if need be, he can tag him again. With that much time, he should make a solid decision. I can’t see Cousins going anywhere as long as he is performing. This is one of the cases where the owners really did themselves right in the CBA.

    • Trey Gregory - Jul 14, 2016 at 6:48 PM

      It bothers me that we except a heralded GM can’t tell what Cousins is by now. There’s no such thing as a sure bet in the NFL. No matter how he plays next year, he could drastically change in year 3. Just use you’re judgement and get on.

      I understand why you don’t think we would lose Cousins as long as he plays well. But it really is more complicated than that. People hate this, but football players are human. Their environment affects their performance. So this giant distraction, the organization’s lack of faith, and the pressure to play for his future could actually cause Cousins to play worse in 2016. Like a self fulfilling prophecy. Which affects the whole team and the fans. And maybe sets off a chain of instability in our organization for years. This really is about more than money.

      This franchise will rise or fall with Cousins in the immediate future. If he fails then everything else were building is irrelevant. We will need to draft a new QB. Who could take years to find. Because we’ll probably need a high draft pick. Which means a year or two of losing my which could mean coaches are fired, players are cut, the winning culture is ruined, and we pay free agents too much to come fill our gaps. Either Cousins is the guy or we’re going into the gutter. So put him in the best situation to succeed. He’s the best bet we have.

  6. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - Jul 14, 2016 at 8:27 AM

    We don’t know what Cousins is asking for.

    It’s hard for me to put all the weight for no deal on GM McGlue without that knowledge.

    What if Cousins won’t sign a long term deal now unless it’s the same as Luck’s?

  7. smotion55 - Jul 14, 2016 at 8:35 AM

    worst case =Cousins is here for 2 years for 44 million. Hey they could have Kept RG3 as an alternative but they did not.. The owner’s stand on RG3 and picking up his last year cost us a draft pick and he is a little slow on letting football people do their jobs. He let the coach and GM start Cousins over his prized QB. Ask yourself 1 question Did he OK this hoping Cousins = Coach= and GM would fail because if they don’t sign Cousins the QB drama is here at least for 1 more year. Hell now that this has dragged itself through the mud even if he does sign at the last minute the Drama will be here. Really tired of the BS.

    • Trey Gregory - Jul 14, 2016 at 4:10 PM

      We lost a draft pick how? Please don’t say in an RG3 trade. Only one team showed him any interest in free agency when he didn’t cost any draft picks: the Browns. And they signed him cheap.

      • John - Jul 14, 2016 at 5:32 PM

        A swap of a 1st, 2 more 1st and a 2nd, when they drafted RG3. That’s a lot of lost picks and time trying to justify a guy who can’t play QB in the NFL. If that was what he was inferring.

        • Trey Gregory - Jul 14, 2016 at 6:26 PM

          He said picking up his option last year cost us a draft pick. He wasn’t talking about what we gave up to get him.

      • bangkokben - Jul 14, 2016 at 6:10 PM

        It is certainly reasonable to believe that had there been no option of $16.1 million on Griffin — guaranteed only for injury — that Griffin could’ve been traded before the trade deadline for the metaphoric equivalent bag of rusty nails and the crusts of a ham sandwich (a conditional round draft pick). There were loads of teams desperate for QBs due to injury and performance.

        • Trey Gregory - Jul 14, 2016 at 6:36 PM

          It’s possible, but I think unlikely. Maybe for a conditional 7th. But who cares? I would rather him show up for his last camp for us to have one more look to see if he could be the guy over a conditional 7th.

          And even if that wasn’t the case. A team would trade a draft pick for a one year loan on a severely underperforming QB with a 6 mil cap hit? I’m not sure if the new team would be able to exercise his option if he was traded. But then they’re on the hook for $15 mil guaranteed for injury if they want to keep him. Why not just wait until he hits free agency the next year?

          And we saw what happened in free agency. Absolutely nothing. A team that is purposely tanking for the next 2-3 years brought him aboard to be their whipping boy. And they were the only team. The Jets are rolling with Geno Smith over RG3. Think about that. I don’t think there would have been a trade.

          I wish they hadnt exercised his option too. But let’s not pretend like it really hurt us. The main thing we lost was a roster spot because we couldn’t cut the guy.

        • bangkokben - Jul 14, 2016 at 8:22 PM

          Trey, First of all, it simply is an example of how the FO didn’t do what was best for the team — using hindsight of course. And true, any compensation would have been minimal but TO SOME getting anything back for Griffin was important because of what was given up for him. So had there been no option — which the only reason for picking it up appeared to be to give Griffin the necessary confidence to succeed — the Redskins would’ve been free to trade him anytime from the QB change up until November 3rd last year. Teams that were desperate for help may have parted with compensation for someone with Griffin’s resume as a tryout since the Redskins were on the hook for Griffin’s salary no matter on the team, cut, or traded. Because of this, it is possible that if they could get compensation, they could’ve gotten a bit more then the minimum but not likely much more. Now the deadline just so happens to be the week after the “You like that!” game. So considering the dynamic that many feels still exists — that Snyder still has his influence on the QB position — it is STILL unlikely that a deal could’ve been done. But if that is just a dreaded feeling of the past, A DEAL would’ve gotten done. You mention the lack of demand for Griffin in FA but that was because of the supply. DURING the season the supply is painfully low. Mike Vick was signed and played for the Steelers and there were a handful of other situations.

          It’s completely speculative, unable to prove or disprove, and has no direct bearing on the team. However, there are two key EMOTIONS that continue to be expressed by Redskin fans: Snyder still has his fingerprints on the business side of football and the FO is taking action differently then they would had Griffin succeed. Right or wrong, the impact is that McCloughan get’s a pass and Snyder gets the blame.

  8. bangkokben - Jul 14, 2016 at 11:06 AM

    Anyone thinking the Redskins can sign a long-term deal if he performs or simply tag Cousins again next year and Kirk will just smile and sign on the dotted line again is not looking at the whole picture. Cousins is making 30 times more this year than last year or a 3000% increase. Next year, if tagged, it would be a 20% increase. That is where just about every NFL player considers holding out, not signing the tender, missing OTAs, and basically acting like a petulant teenager because the tag has severely limited their earning potential (see Von Miller). Furthermore, the tag would then be unavailable for either Baker, Galette, Garcon, Jackson, or anyone else if needed. Finally, and most importantly, if the Redskins and Cousins are as far apart as what has been reported, then why would the Redskins finally see the market for what it is and not just view recent quarterback contracts as anomalies — which is apparently how they, the Broncos, and the Jets see it. It would appear that one that is so slow to adapt would then try to pay 2016 prices in 2017 turning what is currently a tenuous but fine player/organization relationship to one that is bound to start 2017 acrimoniously.

    • ET - Jul 14, 2016 at 2:53 PM

      You’re really fillin’ me full of hope, man.

      (Seriously, you make some good points. We can be reasonably sure that Scot is attuned to the Realpolitik method of QB pricing (or “pay ’em what the market demands, ’cause there ain’t enough to go around”). So it seems that this organization, if it’s slow to adapt, is once again receiving orders in a top-down manner that’s not at all related to the realities of NFL economics.

      • bangkokben - Jul 14, 2016 at 3:24 PM

        Yeah. Not my normal glass half-full stuff.

      • Trey Gregory - Jul 14, 2016 at 4:15 PM

        I don’t know how you can be so sure of that about McCloughan. The guy can make mistakes or be stubborn. John Elway is a good GM right? But he’s been downright petulant and unrealistic in his QB negotiations this offseason. He wanted Kap to pack his belongings, move cities, change teams, and take LESS money than he was already guaranteed in San Fran. Yeah…. even good GMs can make bonehead moves.

        Bang is 100% correct in his post (as usual). Those of you who are so sure this will go our way if the team plays hardball are ignoring how the real world actually works.

        • John - Jul 14, 2016 at 5:27 PM

          The market drives the money not cheapskate fans. The least he’ll get is a $20-$21 million annual with roughly 50% garunteed in some way shape or form depending on the length of the contract and any “early outs”.

          In Kaps case, he’s not that good. He was great in 2012 and 2013 (more about the team and the read option before defenses clamped down on it) but what has he done since then? After the way Manning fell apart physically, Elway figured he could get Kap for less after the injury/demotion. Benefit to Kap, playing for a Super Bowl ready team and a system friendly to his talents.

        • Trey Gregory - Jul 14, 2016 at 6:24 PM

          I don’t disagree about your assessment of Kap. But why would a player give up guaranteed money? He could get injured in the first snap in the preseason and never play again. A Super Bowl isn’t guaranteed for any team. It was arrogant, unreasonable, and unrealistic to assume he would do that. I’m not trying to state Kap’s value, I’m saying that was a pipe dream. Do people honestly believe the chance of a SB is more important to these guys than their family’s long-term security?

          Elway also tried getting San Fran to pay the difference. He would take their starting QB off their hands if they paid the difference in the salary. That’s absurd. Regardless of how we feel about Kap, he’s the best QB on that team. At the very least Gabbert isn’t good enough to be handed the job without competition from a viable alternative. He needed to make it worth San Fran’s while to trade Kap. Elway is in denial about the current QB market. I don’t think Osweiler deserved the money Houston gave him, but that’s what it takes in this market. Denying that won’t get you anywhere. Elway is lucky someone didn’t grab Lynch before him or else he would really look bad. But Lynch is a rookie and not pro ready. This vaunted D could fall apart before Lynch is truly ready to make a push.

          As far as setting the market. I completely agree. But if that’s true: how can you say Elway was right to not pay Kap $15 mil? That’s the market. And so Kap was good with a better team around him, and a better coach. Well Denver has a much better D, better receivers, better RBs, a better coach, and a better front office. It’s not unreasonable to say Kap could play better than manning did last year. Is that worth a $15 mil rental for a year to find out? Elway essentially spent a first and a seventh round pick betting against Kap (or Fitz, or RG3, or Osweiler, or any FA QB) to get Sanchez and Lynch. Which means he has nothing until we see it. I actually think the Sanchez trade was fantastic for Denver because he’s a capable backup for a 7th. But now the returning champs are entering the season with Mark Sanchez as their starting QB. It’s a huge gamble, that could pay off, but Elway is still undervaluing the QB market.

  9. wvredskins - Jul 14, 2016 at 12:47 PM

    It just makes me wonder if Cousins was on another team and per say the team released Cousins kinda like the panthers released Josh Norman and we just had McCoy as our starter going into this season. Would we sign him to a deal to Cousins liking then? I believe we would. But that is entirely different circumstances.

    • Trey Gregory - Jul 14, 2016 at 5:27 PM

      Maybe. But it’s hard to say because the tag wouldn’t be on the table. I believe a deal would already be done if the tag wasn’t an option. McCloughan did sign Matt Flynn to a big deal with a smaller sample size.

  10. John - Jul 14, 2016 at 2:03 PM

    Regarding the others mentioned, per Casserly, JKC Jr had no clue and blew it on Marshall and Green. The other guys just never lived up to the dollars. Gilbert and Carter were not all that. Gilbert was replaced by Wilkinson and Stubblefield. Carter was replaced by Bailey and Smoot. Orakpo played OK but was out with pec injuries half the time he was here.

    Kirk on the other hand is a different story. He proved himself last season (though some want to continually harp on the picks of 2014). Gruden chose him over RG3 and Scott M went to the mat for him with Snyder last year prior to the start of the season. RG3 is a bust and that will be proved out this season. Kirk and his agent are trying to get as much as possible.
    NFL careers can be cut short due to injuries and agents always get a piece of the contract and want to make a name for themselves. Archives

Follow Us On Twitter