Who else thinks

At the same time, what if Frank Gore and Patrick Willis were UFAs and had an itch to test the FA market, would you want the 49ers to lose that Franchise/Transition power in order to retain superstars?

The franchise tag is the last resort for teams that are unable to agree to a contract extension with a highly valuable player. If a team had to give up so much to get that player originally, I'd do everything in my power to keep em on the team if he's producing.

This is exactly why it's very important to develop talent through the draft, and not rely in free agency - like some of our Nolan offseasons.

i think the tag is misused now. esp when punters and non"franchise" type players get the tag. i think the tag should give the player 2x the average of the top 5 at their position. If the club truly was trying to keep the player they should try to get an extension done b4 the contract expires...Having it cost more would also ensure the franchise player gets paid so that if by some stroke of badluck he got injured and never got to cash in on FA.

[ Edited by Sinsation on Jun 21, 2009 at 23:16:27 ]

Just puts more emphasis on drafting the right guys and paying your own talent that you developed. Just imagine if the Niners couldn't tag willis and he just went to the highest bidder. got to look at it both ways.

I agree with the tag rules. When they put free agency in they needed something to ensure a team is compensated for the loss of a good player.

Just because a player is tagged doesn’t mean he can’t sign with another team the other team just has to pay a lot to get them. More than the one year tag deal plus two first round picks if the current team doesn’t match.