Why Not Franchise Tag Tee Higgins Twice?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(Yesterday, 06:24 PM)Whatever Wrote: The Union will never strike over the Franchise Tag.  That's because the FT is a complete non-issue for 99% of the membership, as 99% of the players will never be good enough that a team would consider tagging them.

If they didn't strike on principle when the Steelers tagged Leveon Bell two years in a row, a RB with a lot less years in his prime to get a payday, they won't do it for a WR.

Beyond that, with the way the past two seasons have gone, the fully guaranteed FT may be more guaranteed money than Tee can get with a multi-year deal on the open market.  

Or Kirk Cousins.
Or Drew Brees (non-consecutive years).
Or Dak Prescott.

I don't even want to tag (or extend) Tee, didn't want to tag him the first time unless we were planning on trading him before the draft. But yeah, pretending that using a mechanic the players negotiated for to be in the CBA would be some overwhelming abuse (or "slavery") and that every single player in the NFL is going to threaten to forego paychecks because of Tee Higgins is just a hilariously bad take.