Landon Collins

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Coltsalr

In other news, Brad Wells is still a retard:

@BradWellsNFL
Tweeting this late, but I do agree with many of you followers that Landon Collins would be great in Indy. However, signing Collins to a huge deal would be Ballard admitting that Malik Hooker isn’t the answer at safety. I don’t see him doing that.

Holy shit, I always knew Wells was stupid, but he clearly has no understanding of football at all. Hooker and Collins really do not play the same position at all.

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by Butter

Holy shit, I always knew Wells was stupid, but he clearly has no understanding of football at all. Hooker and Collins really do not play the same position at all.

Exactly. FREE safety and STRONG safety are two distinct positions, especially in this defense. Much like Earl Thomas and Kam Chancellor played two completely different positions, Landon Collins would play a completely different position than Malik Hooker. Hopefully the latter duo turns out as well as the former if the Colts sign Collins.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

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.

1. Maybe - after reading your comment, I ran a brief Google search and found this article discussing what I think you're referring to:

https://247sports.com/nfl/carolina-p...ons-129743945/

The problem is that each of the referenced decisions Gettleman made, while controversial at the time, ended up working out in his favor.

2. Agreed, though I'd hope a lower profile player like Amos wouldn't cost 85-90% of Collins.

3. I don't disagree, but I'm not sure I understand how this responds to my comment. My point is that because the safeties are devalued, we don't need to pay top dollar for one like Collins. We can get most of the production we need from a MUCH less expensive player because there are so many good ones available. We probably could get one of them to sign a Ballard one year with options deal, too, rather than committing to a long term guaranteed contract.

[VeveJones007]

Originally Posted by Chaka

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.

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.

[YDFL Commish]

Originally Posted by VeveJones007

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.

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

[VeveJones007]

Originally Posted by YDFL Commish

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

I think so, but there's a possibility that his deficiencies keep some teams from pursuing him. Those drawbacks to his game aren't as big of a factor in the Colts scheme.

Anyway, my broader point is that the Colts should consider Collins. If the market is too high for them to justify, so be it. They've earned some trust over the past year.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by VeveJones007

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.

Thank you. As far as your first point is concerned, to be fair the RBs Gettleman drafted (Saquon Barkley and Christian McCaffrey) have worked out pretty well, so it's hard to fault him for those picks - particularly if he wasn't enamored with any of the available QBs in last year's draft. If the guy was making wild picks and reaching for players instead of taking obvious upgrades, then I'd place less weight in his decision making. So while I don't question that you're right that this decision comes from the GM, it doesn't really address my original question of whether the decision he made (not to tag Collins) causes any concern. From what I've read (and admittedly it's a fairly small amount of info - I knew next to nothing about Gettlemen until this thread was created), the guy isn't afraid to make unpopular decisions, but they are often proven right in retrospect. So I remain concerned about this.

As far as the importance of the safety position in our defense, I'll defer to you and others who are more knowledgeable than me about the X's and O's. I can accept that a good SS may be more valuable to us than to other teams, but that should mean that the other teams won't be willing to pay top dollar for him, and we should be able to get him more cheaply. Ultimately, it's really a question of how much to pay, rather than whether to sign him. Here's an article I came across when looking up Gettleman info which makes the observation that 7 of 8 best paid safeties are free safeties and that strong safeties are usually paid much less:

https://www.bigblueview.com/2019/3/6...dave-gettleman

So by paying Collins as one of the best paid safeties in the league, we'd be shattering precedent more than most realize. It bears noting that this sort of thing worked out pretty well when we drafted Nelson, of course.

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Thank you. As far as your first point is concerned, to be fair the RBs Gettleman drafted (Saquon Barkley and Christian McCaffrey) have worked out pretty well, so it's hard to fault him for those picks - particularly if he wasn't enamored with any of the available QBs in last year's draft. If the guy was making wild picks and reaching for players instead of taking obvious upgrades, then I'd place less weight in his decision making. So while I don't question that you're right that this decision comes from the GM, it doesn't really address my original question of whether the decision he made (not to tag Collins) causes any concern. From what I've read (and admittedly it's a fairly small amount of info - I knew next to nothing about Gettlemen until this thread was created), the guy isn't afraid to make unpopular decisions, but they are often proven right in retrospect. So I remain concerned about this.

As far as the importance of the safety position in our defense, I'll defer to you and others who are more knowledgeable than me about the X's and O's. I can accept that a good SS may be more valuable to us than to other teams, but that should mean that the other teams won't be willing to pay top dollar for him, and we should be able to get him more cheaply. Ultimately, it's really a question of how much to pay, rather than whether to sign him. Here's an article I came across when looking up Gettleman info which makes the observation that 7 of 8 best paid safeties are free safeties and that strong safeties are usually paid much less:

https://www.bigblueview.com/2019/3/6...dave-gettleman

So by paying Collins as one of the best paid safeties in the league, we'd be shattering precedent more than most realize. It bears noting that this sort of thing worked out pretty well when we drafted Nelson, of course.

Shattering precedent? The Colts made Bob Sanders one of the highest paid safeties in the NFL.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

Shattering precedent? The Colts made Bob Sanders one of the highest paid safeties in the NFL.

Wasn't that like 10-15 years ago? I was talking about current existing precedent, based upon the info in the article I linked which addressed the current status of safeties in the NFL.

Also, with regard to Sanders, though I can't recall the terms of that particular contract, I'm guessing there were lots of escape hatches in that agreement due to Sanders' extreme injury history, so whatever the contract amount was I doubt he ever received close to what was reported in the media.

[rcubed]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

Shattering precedent? The Colts made Bob Sanders one of the highest paid safeties in the NFL.

technically there is a highest paid player at every position, every year.