Nick Collins is the 5th most important player on this defense, behind NT, both MLB's and our pass rushing OLB. If our starting safeties are Bigby and Smith, I'm not losing any sleep.

I couple of things were different.

Grant was exclusive rights, but he hadn't signed his tender so he wasn't under contract. The motivations were similar as he didn't wish to risk it, and the shelf life of an RB in the NFL is shorter than a S.

Grant also would've been grossly underpaid as a starting RB had he signed the tender, and was coming off of a highly productive year.

It's been reported that TT trys to be fair (such as the sweeteners given to other vets) and the Grant contract wasn't really that much different.

Collins, on the other hand, isn't underpaid going into this year ($3 mil is quite fair IMO). He just wants the payday now, and I don't blame him (even though I will criticize him if he holds out since he is under contract).

quote:

Originally posted by Coach:

I'm sure he could take out an insurance policy to cover all or most of what he's scheduled to earn this year, but he's hunting bigger game and I don't believe there is an insurance company in the world that would write a policy covering him for the 17-23 mil he could potentially lose on his next contract

He can actually insure himself up to about $15 million in the current world, LLoyds of London are getting $325k for that policy and its good for 18 months.

Leinart insured his ass for $10 million during his final season at USC

Insurers just call the actuary, move the decimal point and deposit the check.

I am sure Nick would rather earn it on the field, but if he is truly worried, he has options.

In the end, if he proves it on the field he will be well taken care of, surprised he and his agent haven't been paying attention.

$325 K is more than 10% of his deal for the coming year (and I believe more than half of what he made all of last year), and that's not refundable (and then there's also the issue of the status of the CBA...it's at least possible he won't be eligible for FA for two more seasons).

Holding out (or threatening/posturing to) in order to spur negotiations doesn't cost a dime until he starts missing mandatory practices.

In other words, do the math.

quote:

In other words, do the math.

36 + 85 = CHAMPIONSHIP!

I thought 36 + 85 = 121, but what do I know?

If I were Collins, just giving someone else a chance to get in on the ground floor of the new defense and take my job would get me into OTAs. But that is just me.

Did Thompson see this coming when he signed Smith?

Yes.

jeenyous.

quote:

Originally posted by CUPackFan:
Nick Collins is the 5th most important player on this defense, behind NT, both MLB's and our pass rushing OLB. If our starting safeties are Bigby and Smith, I'm not losing any sleep.

- I gotta agree right here.
If history proves correct, Capers defense wants multiple position versatility in the secondary, the important guys are the front 7 putting pressure on the QB.

The Result? IMO, Collins is a pretty versatile cog but not a bank-breaker by any means.

Peter King's take on the Nick Collins situation :

Peter King - SI

quote:

He's a top 25, top 30 NFL defensive back. He's not Troy Polamalu, not Ed Reed. I daresay, yet, he's not even Polamalu's running mate in the Steelers backfield, Ryan Clark. And he wants monster money. I'm told there's a good chance the Packers are going to let him sit and have no intention in re-doing his contract. They shouldn't.

In this case, I agree with King.

Collins was blessed with an incentive rich contract and he wants more ??!! He's not that good. Let him sit if he threatens a hold out.

Couple of new twitter posts from PU today. Apparently Collins is disgruntled with the contract Grant got last year, and why the team won't negotiate with him when tehy did with Grant. I see his point.

Collins and Grant are both represented by the same agency, I am sure they thought they would just use the same tactics again with similar success

Apparently, they haven't been paying attention....

quote:

Originally posted by pakrbakr:
Apparently Collins is disgruntled with the contract Grant got last year, and why the team won't negotiate with him when they did with Grant.

Maybe because Thompson won't make the same mistake twice

EXACTLY--TT has to undo the message he sent when he caved to Grant. This is his chance and the fact that it is the same agent and the fact that it is questionable whether Collins can handle the new scheme make it that much easier. Our front 7 are going to be so good we don't need D'backs, anyway!

quote:

Our front 7 are going to be so good we don't need D'backs, anyway

Easy tiger. I still want some passes defensed and INT's. They go hand-in-hand

Especially if they intercept a certain purple clad player wearing a number between 3 and 5.

John David Booty?

quote:

Originally posted by Liam:
John David Booty?

quote:

Originally posted by pakrbakr:
Couple of new twitter posts from PU today. Apparently Collins is disgruntled with the contract Grant got last year, and why the team won't negotiate with him when tehy did with Grant. I see his point.

As previously posted, I believe they are significantly different situations (although I'm sure that doesn't matter to Collins and his agent).

Grant would've been very underpaid as a returning starter last year (even factoring in the disappointing season he had) if he had signed his tender (and he didn't sign said tender and was able to get his extension). The relative merits of the signing should be more clear by the end of this year (he either bounces back or he doesn't), and we'll proceed from there.

OTOH, Collins isn't scheduled to be underpaid this year @ $3 Mil because of his escalator clauses, so there isn't really any compelling "fairness" issue that would cause TT to rethink his current position (which apparently is let's see how Collins adapts to the new defense and then make a decision).

Collins made his feelings known by skipping much the voluntary portions of OTA's (contributed to by the illness/death in his family). It's up to him to decide if staging a holdout when TC starts will force TT's hand. I personally believe it would be a mistake to do so, but it's the only leverage he has.

I also think Collins will eventually cave in and report. He likely won't be a happy camper, but them's the breaks.

While he's absent, it's "next man in".

They won't give him a new deal. He's making 3+ million which is more than fair. He just wants insurance in case he sucks in this defense but the Packers want to be protected from the same thing. Unfortunately someone has to lose and it's going to be Nick Collins. If he sits out, they will move on and he'll be screwed and if he shows up and sucks he'll be screwed....what he should do is show up, shut up and do everything he can to make sure he performs well enough to get paid.

I think some of you are really overrating the "new defense" aspect of all this. He's coming off a great statistical year and new defense or no, it might be hard to improve on his numbers, especially if he were to suffer a major injury (obviously). It IS different from Ryan Grant in some ways, but in others it's exactly the same: he wants to get a big, multi-year deal with a major signing bonus as soon as possible, to protect him in case he gets hurt or doesn't manage a boatload of INTs again, and the Packers will be hesitant to pay anyone any sooner than they have to for the same reasons: what if he gets hurt? What if his big year was a fluke.

That and they made a mistake giving Grant a multi-year deal before they had to and they don't want to do it again for a guy coming off just one great season. Jennings, for example, had two of them.

quote:

Originally posted by Max:
I think some of you are really overrating the "new defense" aspect of all this. He's coming off a great statistical year and new defense or no, it might be hard to improve on his numbers, especially if he were to suffer a major injury (obviously). It IS different from Ryan Grant in some ways, but in others it's exactly the same: he wants to get a big, multi-year deal with a major signing bonus as soon as possible, to protect him in case he gets hurt or doesn't manage a boatload of INTs again, and the Packers will be hesitant to pay anyone any sooner than they have to for the same reasons: what if he gets hurt? What if his big year was a fluke.

I don't think anyone is overrating the new defense. That's the wild card in the whole scenario. It's not going to be INT's that decide his fate, it's going to be the mental side of things. He has a lot of responsibility in this defense and he has to prove that he can actually do it before they start working on a new deal. Read the offense, make the adjustments, be in the right place, etc. It won't take many games for him to prove his value, I think it's one of those things where you can either do it or you can't... if he can't handle it, they will let him walk and draft a replacement, if he can do it then he will have a new deal by mid-season.

Multiple people have theorized that Collins is seeking a new contract at least in part because he's worried about how he'll perform in the new defense, and that the Packers are holding off on giving him a new contract at least in part because they want to see how he'll perform in the new defense. That, to me, is overrating it. You may be right that the INTs won't "decide his fate," but they are the kind of thing that put people in the Pro Bowl, which helps convince them and their agents that they're one of the top players at their position in the league.

Put it this way:

If the Packers weren't switching defenses, would they want to give Nick Collins a new contract right now? If the Packers weren't switching defenses, would Nick Collins be happy with his existing contract?

Unless you can answer yes to either of those things, and I can't see why you could, it's reasonable to say that the new defense has no impact on the situation. It's just a standard, annual story of a player coming off a really good season wanting a raise before he's due one, and the team not wanting to give him one.

The role of the safety in the new defense is significantly different and more important than it was in the previous one, perhaps we can agree on that

If the Packers weren't switching defenses they would be more inclined to offer Nick a long term deal sooner because there would be one less unknown, and a big one at that.

Nick and his agent want the money guaranteed, regardless of the defensive scheme GB chooses, and have chosen his post-Pro Bowl season as the moment to make their case

If Nick and his agent felt he would have an even better year ( like Jennings and his agent ) they would be content to wait as the salary only goes up.

They want guaranteed money for 2009-2012 based on '08 performance, GB wants to award 2009-2012 money based on past and present performance.

One wants to extrapolate using only the past ( no risk) the other wants to include current 34 performance in setting future pay.

quote:

Originally posted by Satori:
If the Packers weren't switching defenses they would be more inclined to offer Nick a long term deal sooner

I disagree

quote:

If Nick and his agent felt he would have an even better year ( like Jennings and his agent ) they would be content to wait as the salary only goes up.

He was the NFC's starting free safety in the Pro Bowl and was 2nd in the league with 7 interceptions. Realistically, it doesn't get much better than that. The odds of having a better year -- more interceptions, another starting nod in the Pro Bowl -- are somewhat outweighed by the chances of him tearing up his knee and never getting that big payday. I think he'd take a little less money a year earlier over maybe getting bigger money a year from now...but maybe getting hurt and getting far less.