I think that, when a player is going to get 10 million per year (just an easy number for an example, not meant for this case) if he signs a 3 year deal, and he's going to get 12 million for one year on a franchise tag, it's pretty clear that the 3 year deal is the one offering the security.
The 10 million is nothing moving forward. It's great for one year. Given that Welker would get more than 10 million into his bank account year one on a multi-year deal, though, the notion that playing on the franchise tag is security is incorrect in context.
Frankly, given the Brees contract, I'm stunned that anyone would even think to argue against this.
Edit:
Ok, given what I've seen quoted by others, PFIP apparently is arguing against my position, making it about 100% certain that I'm correct, regardless of any other aspect of the discussion.
So, to sum up...
Players comments back what I'm stating
Brees' contract backs what I'm stating
PFIP disagrees with that I'm stating
Short of God telling everyone I'm right, I don't know if it's possible for me to have stronger backing of my position.