Now, first of all, let me clarify that, since Adam Viniateri is not available, I have absolutely nothing against the fact that the Seahawks did whatever they felt necessary to keep Josh Brown in the fold for at least another year. 

 Sporting News, in an article last week, indicated that Brown was a "bad kicker" and should not be retained.  Ironically, Sporting News is owned by Paul Allen, who also owns the Seahawks.  I don't quite get where they came up with the "bad kicker" label, though...

Consider his record of last minute, game winning field goals during the 2006 season (four, to be exact), which might just make him the best player on the team during the rash of injuries which plagued the post-SB XL year, if not the team MVP.

Consider also that tagging him will only cost the team about $2MM for the next year--basically a drop in the salary cap budget with all of the room that they will have this upcoming season.

What it also means is that the tag can't be applied to the player that most thought it might go to, tight end Jerramy Stevens.  This will effectively allow Stevens to test the free agent market in the upcoming couple of months.    They could apply the transitional tag, but that didn't work out so well last year with Steven Hutchinson, so the team might be a little gunshy about using it again this year,, although it should be noted that the team has advised that they intend to make every effort to sign Stevens as well.

Stevens is well known for his episodes of dropsy (the ball that is) during the 2005 season and the Super Bowl, and for taking on Joey Porter in a smack talking debate prior to that event.  He had surgery prior to this past season, and was out for a period of time.  He was, however, very effective in the games in which he appeared toward the end of the season.

Since the franchise tag can only be applied to one player, which one would you have chosen?  Personally, I think they used it properly.  Good kickers are a little harder to find than good tight ends.