Franchise Tag: Cooley or Taylor?

I think the franchise tag has become something that it was never intended to be. It's a huge negative for a guy to get franchised now, they rarely ever get extensions. I'd rather not be in the situation, but should it arise, you have my answer.

I agree, players seem to take it as a sign of disrespect. Players always want that monster signing bonus, after all it's the only guaranteed portion of their deal so you really can't blame them.

I really, really, really, really, really hate hypothetical questions.

Especially when you consider that Cooley will be a free agent in 2008, and Taylor will be in 2010 (or 2009 if he hits enough escalators to void the last year). Either way, neither will bump up against each other in a choice for a franchise tag.

But I guess in dream world where I'm forced to choose, I'd rather keep Chris Cooley.

This debate is stupid.

It's a very strange thing to me. You know, how you could make millions and millions of dollars and still be unhappy.

Still, I can see where the players are coming from. It's like I bust my balls for 'minimum wage' for a few years, you as my employer start to finally recognize that I'm the man, but you compensate me for one year...only to wait and find out whether I'll be the man again next season.

Oh, and if I'm older or I get injured, all bets are off.

I really, really, really, really, really hate hypothetical questions.

Especially when you consider that Cooley will be a free agent in 2008, and Taylor will be in 2010 (or 2009 if he hits enough escalators to void the last year). Either way, neither will bump up against each other in a choice for a franchise tag.

But I guess in dream world where I'm forced to choose, I'd rather keep Chris Cooley.

This debate is stupid.

What's stupid about it? And who said it was a debate?

This debate is stupid.

:iamwithst

But I guess I'll throw my vote toward Cooley. Taylor hasn't shown me that he is the dominant force everyone promised he'd be. Cooley, on the other hand, has consistently exceeded expectations.

Oh, and I wouldn't want my Cooley jersey to become out of date.

I wouldn't franchise either guy. I would sign Cooley to a long term deal. He deserves it. Taylor? I don't know about him. Is it me, or does it seem like he just doesn't want to be here??

What's stupid about it? And who said it was a debate?

It's stupid because there is no foreseeable circumstance in real life in which Taylor and Cooley would be competing for the franchise tag.

It's a debate because some people are choosing Taylor, others are choosing Cooley, and arguing the merits of either choice.

The Skins should attempt to resign both. Resigning Cooley will probably be easier than Taylor. Taylor has a difficult agent and seems to be upset with some of the moves the Redskins have made. He may hold out for a big contract. Therefore he would be a good candidate for the franchise tag. I would hate to see him go, but the team cannot allow a single player to hold them hostage. If he wants to play hardball, let him go.

I would franchise the guy that it would be cheaper to franchise. So probably Taylor. I am only guessing that it is more expensive to franchise a TE than a S. If the reverse is true then I reverse my opinion. Sign the more expensive guy and franchise the other. That minimizes your cap hit.

Ultimately though this is a worthless discussion as Schneed has pointed out.

It's stupid because there is no foreseeable circumstance in real life in which Taylor and Cooley would be competing for the franchise tag.

It's a debate because some people are choosing Taylor, others are choosing Cooley, and arguing the merits of either choice.

Of course there is no foreseeble circumstance in real life, I think I was pretty clear in stating that.

This really wasn't about franchising, per se, but rather which player fellow Warpathers feel is more valuable to the team.