[JoeRedskin]

I am not afraid Rak signs somewhere else, I would bet a solid $100 that he would. He is the player at whom someone will throw a bucket of money. If they don't tag him, consider him gone - which is fine if you have a back-up plan. Otherwise, you are just creating more problems. I have yet to see a legitimate back up plan that (1) is guaranteeing equal or better production; or (2) has any cost analysis that explains why a tag of Rak will create salary cap problems immediately or in the future.

Don't overpay?! We are filling the position with a UFA or Rak (a prospective UFA). Given the nature of free agency, and to guarantee equal or better production from the spot, we are either overpaying Rak a little OR overpaying someone else (or several someones else) a lot.

You think no one is going to throw buckets at Rak. Fine, you may be right - BUT, if you don't tag him and then EXPECT him to come back THAT is weak and stupid if you don't have a back-up plan. Either the plan is to fill ROLB with a premier UFA or take a risk on a cheap alternative. Tell me your plan to fill this spot and get a legitimate 10 sack production from it at a cost less than 11M/year. Very simply, we will be overpaying an import OR taking a risk that Rak's production can be replaced on the cheap.

The question is not whether someone else will pay him, it's whether or not we can guarantee a replacement that will equal the production from ROLB position with a less expensive option. If we cannot guarrantee equal or better production for less, than you have just created one more hole on a defense that has other more pressing needs AND - as an added detriment - increased the leverage of Riley and R.Jax. Unless, of course, you think we can rebuild the entire back 8 from UFA's and draft picks.

With Rak tagged, we now have to only replace/retain our ILB's rather than 3/4's of our entire LB corp.