Originally Posted by Coltsalr (Post 111728)

Can it be both?

Originally Posted by smitty46953 (Post 111724)

Brad Wells is a well known idiot :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by VeveJones007 (Post 111384)

Signing Collins won’t have any impact on bringing in help in the front 7.

Originally Posted by Chromeburn (Post 111731)

Yeah, I read through it. So if Ballard signs Collins they, therefore, are admitting Hooker is not good and worth resigning to a second contract. Because only a stupid team pays two safeties second contracts. That's a leap of logic. Really it's just another attempt to feed his anti-Ballard narrative that he has adopted for some reason.

Originally Posted by Lawrence Owen (Post 111755)

Signing Collins IS help for the front 7. He is a primarily box defender. A guy with great instincts, and tackling ability. Another person an O-line and coach HAS to account for, and even game plan for. Eberflus loves blitzing with DB's, and with Collins athletic ability, he'd be a dangerous person on our defense. Look at what DC's did with athletic safeties in the past,...Troy P., and even last years DROTY- runner-up. Used effectively, A really good box safety is dangerous.
And Like said above,...It does free up another draft pick where this years D-line class is deeper than it has been in over a decade.

Originally Posted by FatDT (Post 111710)

Signing Collins is not critical but it's fine. He's a young All-Pro with a great team-first attitude and only 5 games missed in 4 seasons. We have the cap space to sign him to whatever he could possibly want and still have just as much flexibility as we need going forward.

That said, based on what we've seen so far, I don't think safety needs to be a top draft pick or FA to be successful. There are other safeties available in FA that will be cheaper and despite Collins talent I'm not convinced he will be in position to impact that many plays. If we were in a tighter cap situation I would say the money would be far-better spent on a front 7 player.

If we do sign him, that will tell me that either Eberflus wants to do some things differently with the DBs, or that Ballard is relaxing his approach a bit to FA.

Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 111717)

1) Gettleman completely devalues DBs, see his tenure in Carolina for more proof.

2) Fair point. Adrian Amos could provide 85-90% of the player at 70-75% of the price.

3) Safeties are important to this scheme, regardless of their leaguewide importance. Further, if the Colts are deriving value from leaguewide devalued positions, they're going to get bargains and be ahead of the curve.

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 111699)

Collins seemingly is a player that checks most/all of the boxes of a player that Ballard should be interested in, but here are a few concerns I see with signing him to the kind of deal some of you are talking about (5 yr/65M, etc)

1. Is it concerning to anyone that the Giants - the team who should know his capabilities best - thought the franchise tag number was too much for him? I didn't get the sense that this was a situation where the Giants hated him personally or were forced to allow him to leave because they couldn't afford him - they just thought it would be an overpayment.

2. Is this the best use of our resources? Several have pointed out that safety isn't the greatest need on the team. So paying big money to a player who, even if he performs well, will only incrementally improve the defense may not be the best strategy. We could get better bang for our buck by spending that $13M to improve the areas where greater improvement can be achieved - even if it isn't a high profile signing.

3. Related to point #1, the safety position has been devalued in recent years as several have pointed out. Lots of good players have gone unsigned or signed greatly reduced contracts. The signs suggest this may happen again this year, given the number of seemingly high quality safeties that will be flooding the market. So is it necessary to pay top dollar for this guy? Is he that much better than the rest of the safeties?

I'm asking these questions out of honest curiosity. Usually the top free agents end up being overpaid, sometimes massively so, and as a consequence I'm perhaps biased against signing those guys. I know one of the responses is likely to be that we've got lots of cap space, which is true, so why not sign him? But I believe Ballard when he says that the cap space will start to disappear when he starts resigning the Colts own free agents, so I expect him to keep a large chunk of that cap space intact this offseason.

Originally Posted by VeveJones007 (Post 111776)

1) The Giants thought enough of Collins to make him a co-captain of the defense. This is strictly a decision from the GM, who I might point out drafted a RB in the top 10 each of the last two years and ignored the QB position in favor of Eli Manning last draft. I don't give their hesitancy to extend Collins any credibility.

#2 and #3 really play together, so I'll address them that way. You have to view this through the prism of the Colts scheme. After pass rusher, a slashing SS is the biggest need on this defense. Collins is a perfect fit in that regard and there isn't a pass rusher available who justifies a premium investment. Thus, Collins should be considered.

However, after that, it all comes down to value. If Ballard and Eberflus think Collins is worth $9MM/year to them and he signs somewhere for $12MM, then they'll address the position in another manner.

Originally Posted by YDFL Commish (Post 111777)

Collins is getting a minimum of $12MM no matter where he signs.