The NFL Franchise Tag

[Bobblehead]

Rather than continue to foul up the Offseason moves thread, I figured I would make another thread.

Well, what are your thoughts? Is it good or bad for the players, teams, and NFL?

I found a few interesting views on the topic, all in reference to the Seahawks a few years ago when Alexander was "tagged".

A Players view "It's all about respect"

An Unfair Practice "The playing field is too far in the team's favour"

An Impassioned Response "The bigger picture, however, is that the CBA is an entire document of checks and balances that are sewn together to provide stability to the entire game."

I feel this is what the teams received in exchange for the free agency system. Now the players want their cake and eat it, too.

The tag may limit some potential contracts, but only if that player would have been paid as the best in his position. Otherwise, the average of the top 5 at his position is still a substantial amount of money. It is millionaires arguing about pennies, relatively speaking.

The players say it is about wanting a long term contract, when they concede the contract isn't guaranteed and they could be cut at any time anyways. If you are a player worth of a franchise tag then I doubt you are going to be cut unless injured, and in that case you are paid for as long as your injury will last, it is in the CBA.

Finally, the players say it is about respect. I call BS. How is threatening to sit out the first 10 weeks respectful of your team or teammates? How is turning your nose up at millions of dollars respectful to the fans? It is ego, plain and simple.

Is the system perfect. Not by a long shot. But if it is so bad then why is it still in existence 14 years after it was negotiated? It is part of an overall system, and was a trade off to allow some players to earn their multi-million dollar contracts.

If you are in a position to have the franchise tag applied to you then you should recognize the value you are to the team, and not see it as an obstacle between what you will get and what you feel you are entitled to get.

[habernac]

I say let him sit. Does he think he'll somehow get that lost year back in salary? Screw him. It's absolutely the price they pay for free agency.

[burn_baby_burn]

I don't feel sorry for the millionaire athletes one bit. Jared Allen has recently stated that after his one year contract has expired with the Chiefs this season. He is gone, because he hates management (Carl Peterson). He is being a baby about Peterson not giving him a long term contract because of his recent 4 game suspension, to be served at the start of this season. He was asked what he would do if the Chiefs were to slap the fanchise tag on him after this season. His response was a little differant than most UFA's. He said "I guess I would stay, but that number could be as high as $11 million, would the Chiefs be willing to spend that?"

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Rather than continue to foul up the Offseason moves thread, I figured I would make another thread.

Well, what are your thoughts? Is it good or bad for the players, teams, and NFL?

I found a few interesting views on the topic, all in reference to the Seahawks a few years ago when Alexander was "tagged".

A Players view "It's all about respect"

An Unfair Practice "The playing field is too far in the team's favour"

An Impassioned Response "The bigger picture, however, is that the CBA is an entire document of checks and balances that are sewn together to provide stability to the entire game."

I feel this is what the teams received in exchange for the free agency system. Now the players want their cake and eat it, too.

The tag may limit some potential contracts, but only if that player would have been paid as the best in his position. Otherwise, the average of the top 5 at his position is still a substantial amount of money. It is millionaires arguing about pennies, relatively speaking.

The players say it is about wanting a long term contract, when they concede the contract isn't guaranteed and they could be cut at any time anyways. If you are a player worth of a franchise tag then I doubt you are going to be cut unless injured, and in that case you are paid for as long as your injury will last, it is in the CBA.

Finally, the players say it is about respect. I call BS. How is threatening to sit out the first 10 weeks respectful of your team or teammates? How is turning your nose up at millions of dollars respectful to the fans? It is ego, plain and simple.

Is the system perfect. Not by a long shot. But if it is so bad then why is it still in existence 14 years after it was negotiated? It is part of an overall system, and was a trade off to allow some players to earn their multi-million dollar contracts.

If you are in a position to have the franchise tag applied to you then you should recognize the value you are to the team, and not see it as an obstacle between what you will get and what you feel you are entitled to get.

Well I agree that it is not about respect, but it is about long term delas.

They are looking for the big signing bonus, yes the contracts are not guarenteed, but the signing bonus is. As a ball player they are always one hit away from ending their career so I think in some cases it does make sense to sit out the year. The teams work to do what is best for the team, so the players should focus on what is best for them.

The franchise tag is absolutely a barrier between a player and that big deal. There are not very many players that are franchise tag material and those that are, know it and want top dollar. Nothing wrong with that.