After weeks of discussion I can't believe how many people here are stll befuddled and struggling with the whole concept of the use of the franchise tag. It is a means to retain control over a player you are unable to sign. You do it to retain the rights to the asset either until you can get him signed long term or traded, or if you simply want him for another year at a top end salary but do not want to commit to him long term - provided of course you can fit the hit under your cap.
If you really have no intention of trading the player you "exclusive franchise tag" him as we did with Adam. That means no team can talk to him and his salary is based on the highest paid 5 players at his position in the current season rather than the highest paid 5 from the previous season.
If you think you likely can't sign him long term (and perhaps don't even really want to like the Jets and Abraham) but you still want compensation for him (and you can either afford to pay the salary if you have to or you believe he will not sign his tag which means even if no deal is readily available you could pull it in June if you decide to just let him go as the Eagles did with Simon last season) you "non-exclusive franchise tag" him which means he can shop himself but anyone who signs him to a long term deal will owe you prescribed compensation. Buyers will seldom pay that stiff double price so a deal is worked out for lesser (but still usually significant) compensation. The so called tag and trade. Or, if the player never attracts serious attention and has not signed his tag you pull it and he is free to negotiate albeit well after the early buyers have used up their cap. That is why Simon ended up in Indy - they had a need but were among the few with cap room in June of 2005 and jumped at the chance to sign a name DL for less than he'd have cost them on the competitive FA market 3 months earlier.
If Branch is playing well at the end of the 2006 season the Pats would have no problem paying Deion $7M and having it all count on the 2007 cap. The deal they already offered would count $6M in 2007 if they opted not to convert that $4M option bonus and amortize it - which in their new pay as you go mode they might plan to do. That reality likely wasn't lost on Chayut either. Deion can certainly refuse to play under a 2007 tag, but after sitting out TC and 10 games and making zilch in 2006 the chances that he would sit out an entire season in 2007 and force his family/families onto food stamps because he hasn't earned a nickle in 2 years are slim and none. And going forward as a FA having played in just several games in the last 2 seasons his value and reputation would be less than optimum, while he'd be looking to make up between $7-10M in lost income from 2 of his potential peak earning seasons between age 29 and 33 which is when his peak will start heading into the valley.
The tag continues to exist much to the chagrin of the NFLPA's members because it works for teams as a leverage tool to selectively extend their control over un-restricted FA. It only benefits players who are wildly overpaid under the tag. Like Woodson ended up being in Oakland last season because he was injured. Of course that history also limited his true take in UFA this season as his phony 7 year $52M Poston deal only pays him $18M in the first 3 seasons and only guarantees him his $10M signing bonus which makes him expendible if need be in 2 seasons. At $7M for one season Branch would be overpaid but not wildly so unless he's really fragile and only worth about $4M about like Woodson turned out to be only worth possibly $6M.
