Nick Collins Situation

[MadScientist]

The problem also is one of timing. Your team just finished an 11-5 season and may be ready for a deep playoff push. If you give up Collins and get the 1 and 3, and even if you get an Eric Berry, he's still a rookie. He might be the best thing since sliced bread in two or three years, but if you think your team is primed right now for a Super Bowl run, do you put a rookie back there to run the show?

I dunno.

That's a good point also.

On the flip side, if you find the next Ronnie Lott or Ed Reed the drop off may not be too steep and would be hardly noticable. Plus you get an extra 3rd that you can package and move up in the 1st round to get the OT you want instead of having to wait and see what is left at 23.

And before anyone goes crazy, this is what I would do. Not that the Packers are going to do it or are remotely thinking about it.

And if the other team could get a Lott or Reed with that pick, why would they bother giving that plus a 3rd for Collins?

While the Packers aren't forced to do anything in the way of a long term contract, ticking off the star players isn't good business. I expect Collins will get a decent long term contract, but at a bit below the rate he would get as a UFA.

[ThunderDan]

The problem also is one of timing. Your team just finished an 11-5 season and may be ready for a deep playoff push. If you give up Collins and get the 1 and 3, and even if you get an Eric Berry, he's still a rookie. He might be the best thing since sliced bread in two or three years, but if you think your team is primed right now for a Super Bowl run, do you put a rookie back there to run the show?

I dunno.

That's a good point also.

On the flip side, if you find the next Ronnie Lott or Ed Reed the drop off may not be too steep and would be hardly noticable. Plus you get an extra 3rd that you can package and move up in the 1st round to get the OT you want instead of having to wait and see what is left at 23.

And before anyone goes crazy, this is what I would do. Not that the Packers are going to do it or are remotely thinking about it.

And if the other team could get a Lott or Reed with that pick, why would they bother giving that plus a 3rd for Collins?

While the Packers aren't forced to do anything in the way of a long term contract, ticking off the star players isn't good business. I expect Collins will get a decent long term contract, but at a bit below the rate he would get as a UFA.

Its highly unlikely. I guess you have the bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Can a struggling franchise afford pick after pick in the top 10 without crippling themselves long-term? In that case a safe player like Nick Collins would be worth a lot.

I agree with your last paragraph. I think Collins will get a long-term contract at some point this year.

[packerbacker1234]

No idea why we would consider letting Collins go.

Say we aim for this safety everyone is talking about.

- Other teams obviously know about him, were not the only team looking to possibly draft the guy.

- What guarentee is there that he wont be a bust and will be the next big thing at safety? There isn't one.

What do we know about collins?

- Top 5 FS in the league.
- Getting more consistent play at the "top" level of his game each year.
- Is a proven commodity on a playoff/superbowl contendor
- Is the leader of the secondary
- Experienced in current system

I mean, why would we give that up? And who says collins can't be an ed reed? Great ball sense and picking off stuff left and right. He already is good in run support (not great) and pretty decent in coverage... his int numbers are going up and I have no real complaints about him last year. In previous years it was a wonder that he wasn't consistently great, but he has slowly gotten more consistent with each season.

Meanwhile, we trade him off for some picks at the expense of costing us a shot at teh SB? really? At his age?

He's one of the best in the game, why would we want to let him go? I think hoping the next guy is Ed Reed is so unrealistic it baffles me it was brought up. Ed Reed is just special at the position, absolutely special. Possibly the greatest safety to ever play the game, all around. Collins is meanwhile a top 5 FS, which to me, makes him a premier safety in this league.

Sorry, I'd lock him up long haul.

[gbgary]

a signed, happy, collins is better than any alternative.

[Fritz]

I don't think anyone here is seriously advocating that TT ship Collins off. The idea is more along the "what if" lines. One factor that hasn't been mentioned much is the cost of the contract. Sure, it's uncapped this year or will be soon, but there's talk that a future agreement could hold owners responsible for any contracts they hand out in this uncapped year.

But what if a Dan Snyder doesn't care and gives Nick Collins a bajillion dollar contract? I mean, I love Nicky and all, but what if he gets an absolutely stoopid contract from someone? Then what? And what if it could cost you down the road?

Having said that, I think the consensus is that the team would be better off signing Collins to a big but relatively reasonable (given what that means for an NFL top safety) contract.

[Kiwon]

I hope the Pack can keep Collins.

If he's smart, he'll sign a multi-year contract with a sizeable bonus before the possible players' strike in 2011.

[red]

its official, nick got the highest tender. a 1st and a 3rd

i really doubt anyone would give that up in a pretty deep draft at safety

so it looks like a safe bet that he's our safety next season

[Fritz]

Agreed. Unless...unless the Vikings decide a late round first and third are not too much to give up for a guy whose signing will hurt a division rival and put them over the top....

I doubt it would happen. I'm just sayin'.

[vince]

Fortunately, the restriction puts the Packers in a no-lose situation here. You don't want to lose Collins, but I don't think Collins is worth a 1 and 3, so if someone makes an offer the team can't justify matching, the compensation is more than fair.

[mission]

Picks from losing a RFA are applied to this year's upcoming draft, correct?

[retailguy]

Collins is a legit top 5 safety in my opinion. He's not Troy Polamalu or Ed Reed though. He's not as consistent as the very best.

Collins is a good safety and I'm damn glad we got him, but top 5? No chance. He's not "that" good. If they'd have tendered him at a 1st round pick we'd have likely kept him too.

My guess is that the thinking was that NO (or some other low 1st round team) would have tried to poach him with the 1st round tender, since they've got the weakest 1st round pick, it wasn't worth the risk...

glad he's sticking around, but just don't agree with top 5....

[Scott Campbell]

its official, nick got the highest tender. a 1st and a 3rd

i really doubt anyone would give that up in a pretty deep draft at safety

so it looks like a safe bet that he's our safety next season

Heck, I hope somebody would give up that much. I'd take it.

[mngolf19]

Agreed. Unless...unless the Vikings decide a late round first and third are not too much to give up for a guy whose signing will hurt a division rival and put them over the top....

I doubt it would happen. I'm just sayin'.

Fritz they mentioned the Vikes doing something similar in the Mpls paper today. They had the Vikes looking at giving up their 1 and 3 for Jahri Evans of NO if possible.

[Scott Campbell]

Unlike the draft order, these high round tenders sure do create a huge advantage for the good teams in the league.

[Fritz]

That's a good point, Scott. There's a huge difference between losing the 29th pick overall and the 10th pick overall.

But then again, if you have one of the top 2 or 3 picks in the draft, the rookie money is so stupid that if you felt none of the top three guys had that value and potential, why not trade away the albatross of that pick for a proven player who is probably young, too?