quote:

Originally posted by Max:
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.

You're right in saying he wouldn't get a new contract, he obviously still has to prove a lot to Ted Thompson otherwise he would have locked him up already. However, I think it would be much easier for him to get a new deal if we weren't changing schemes. Like I said he still had to stuff to prove, but now he has even more stuff to prove. Changing schemes made the likeliness of a new deal go down even further. If they were satisfied with Sanders and it looked like we would be in the old scheme for a couple more years then I think they would lock him up sooner rather than later.

What are the reasons for not locking him up right now ( or during this season) ?

I believe the answer is uncertainty about his abilities to be the QB of a complex defense

If they stayed with the same 43, what would the reasons be for not signing him long term now ?

Is it because they have other more pressing needs ?

lack of cap space ?

precedent ?

What reasons does the front office have for delaying his new deal ?

I cannot come up with anything but their uncertainty about his 34 talents

Illuminate me please

quote:

Originally posted by Max:
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.

I don't know, it got over $2mm better for Nick.

quote:

Originally posted by Satori:
What are the reasons for not locking him up right now ( or during this season) ?

Illuminate me please

He's only had one really good season

He wants to be paid like a top-3 safety and they don't think he is one (speculation on my part)

They regret paying Ryan Grant sooner than they had to and don't want to do it again

What is so confusing about them not wanting to sign a guy long-term right now who's already making $3 million bucks this year, is under contract, and has only had one really good season?

By the way, this all might be moot since they MIGHT lock him up this preseason or season, still. I mean, it's not over yet, so who knows.

I just don't see any evidence to think switching to a 3-4 is a factor. Most teams don't want to pay players who have only had one good season sooner than they have to. They did it with Ryan Grant and I think it was a mistake, and maybe the Packers do too. And maybe that's why they're not doing it with Collins.

Thanks Max

Perhaps they gave him the 3 million escalator to buy themselves more time on the evaluation...

I don't put much credence into the "only one good year" because if a player ascends in his 3rd/4th season as he is supposed to, then he will have only one good/great season - but is he showing the upward trend they want ?

Trends are more useful than static numbers when considering a 3-5 year commitment

I also think the front office relies more on the film from games and practice than they do the stats and awards in making their assessment. So while his agent may lean heavily on those "numbers", the front office has more at its disposal in making the judgment about Collins future.

The Grant factor , team chemistry, precedents etc may all play a role

I don't think he gets anything before the season.

quote:

Originally posted by Satori:
Thanks Max

Perhaps they gave him the 3 million escalator to buy themselves more time on the evaluation...

I don't put much credence into the "only one good year" because if a player ascends in his 3rd/4th season as he is supposed to, then he will have only one good/great season - but is he showing the upward trend they want ?

Trends are more useful than static numbers when considering a 3-5 year commitment

I don't think they put the escalator in, I think that was just part of the collective bargaining agreement or somesuch, which rewards players across the league for exceeding their rookie contracts. I haven't followed it too closely though.

Bottom line on the other stuff, you can't just give players raises every time they think they deserve it. I mean, let's not forget that the defense sucked last year. Why should anybody think they should get a raise just on the basis of posting some nice statistics while playing in it?

I think the big reason they did Grant and probably will not do Collins is based on what they feel sits behind them.

Unfortunately for Collins, there is Bigby, Rouse, Anderson all up and coming players that could be as good as Collins.

Fortunately for Grant, at the time, the Packers thought they had very little at RB.

I disagree. As others have said, the difference is that Grant was not under contract last year, and Collins is for $3mm this year.

quote:

Originally posted by Hungry5:
I disagree. As others have said, the difference is that Grant was not under contract last year, and Collins is for $3mm this year.

It's true that there's a difference, but in one respect it's very similar. The Packers did not have to do anything with Grant. They don't have to do anything with Collins, either. Had they done nothing with Grant, he would have had two choices: play for the exclusive rights tender, or sit out. Just as Collins can play for his existing contract, or sit out. If they stonewall Collins, I believe they think maybe they should have stonewalled Grant, too.

quote:

I believe they think maybe they should have stonewalled Grant, too.

When Grant rushes for 1,500 yds this season, they'll know they made the right move

quote:

Originally posted by Max:
It's true that there's a difference, but in one respect it's very similar. The Packers did not have to do anything with Grant. They don't have to do anything with Collins, either. Had they done nothing with Grant, he would have had two choices: play for the exclusive rights tender, or sit out. Just as Collins can play for his existing contract, or sit out. If they stonewall Collins, I believe they think maybe they should have stonewalled Grant, too.

To me, the only similarity is that they didn't have to do anything with Grant and they don't have to do anything with Collins, but that is it. The difference, which I believe is quite significant, is that Grant was not under contract so while they did not have to do anything, they also could not fine him under the CBA. Collins is under contract and while they dont have to do anything with him they could fine him under the CBA. Significant difference in leverage from the Packers standpoint.

To me that one similarity is a lot more important. Grant couldn't be "fined" but he also wasn't getting paid. Green Bay's leverage was pretty significant in that case, too, but they gave it up in order to get their player into camp.

Two contract situations, and in both of them the player has two choices: play for the Packers, or sit out and don't get paid. Perhaps Collins/his agent is looking at it as, the Packers caved to Grant, maybe they'll cave to us too.

I doubt it has anything to do with the one year wonder thing. Collins has been in GB for 4 years, so the coaching staff knows exactly what they have. I just don't think Collins is that good, and i think the staff agrees. Collins is an above average safety and $3m is plenty for an above average safety.

Again, Collins is getting a significant raise this year. He's got time(and money) to wait for an extension.

Hold firm.

As CU stated, $3M is plenty for an above average safety.

Again, Collins is playing this poorly. Driver, Jennings were able to read the tea leaves and saw how you get the big payday from TT. Going his road will not get that.

Give him his three mill and send him on his way. He's replaceable.

It's NOT about the $3 mil for this year. Rather, it's about the signing/roster bonus for a long term contract extension. IOW the PayDay.

It remains to be seen when and if the Packers do extend Collins. But I'm certain his beef is with the longer term security a contract extension provides via the signing/roster bonus.

quote:

Originally posted by DurangoDoug:
It's NOT about the $3 mil for this year. Rather, it's about the signing/roster bonus for a long term contract extension. IOW the PayDay.

It remains to be seen when and if the Packers do extend Collins. But I'm certain his beef is with the longer term security a contract extension provides via the signing/roster bonus.

And he hasn't earned it yet.

I agree, YA. He hasn't earned it.

The Packers need to tell Collins and his agent, "We love ya Nick and will get to your contract once we settle our finances, in the mean time you are being adequately compensated."

Buy time to see if Collins stays on his upward improvement trend, or see if one of the new additions can adequately replace him. In other words, wait for further evaluation.

Nicky would have to play a lot crappier for me to care about his contract.

quote:

Originally posted by oshbaul:
Nicky would have to play a lot crappier for me not to care about his contract.

There, I fixed it for you.

Could Oshbaul care less?

Blair?

quote:

Originally posted by Ghost of Lambeau:

quote:

Originally posted by oshbaul:
Nicky would have to play a lot crappier for me not to care about his contract.

There, I fixed it for you.

Never mess with a genius. Edit Osh at your own demise, dude.

quote:

Originally posted by YATittle:
Could Oshbaul care less?

Blair?

Props. Only he could care less, the rest of us couldn't. He also likes soccer.