Jump to content

(poll) So what do we do with SS Landon Collins?


With the emergence of SS Kameran Curl, what to do with L. Collins?  

20 members have voted

  1. 1. What SHOULD we do with SS Landon Collins?

    • Keep him where he is @ SS
    • Trade him to the highest bidder in the off season
    • Just outright cut him with no compensation like we're good at
    • Move him to OLB, where we're thin at
    • Dangle him for trade on Draft Day & draft day only


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Woz said:

Keep in mind that if you restructure a deal, that usually means taking money now and pushing it to later years. So, it would be taking a backloaded contract and making it more backloaded and less likely to cut him in out years.

Very true. Would be nice if restructuring = giving money back, but the players rarely see it that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Curl hadn’t come along this situation would be a little more clear but you simply cannot put Curl on the bench. I still think he’s a good player but I’m not sure he fits in with this team anymore? Also, playing him next to Apke was a disaster. Apke needs to be cut and out of the NFL after this season. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2021 at 9:27 PM, MikeT14 said:

So 8 of you want to see if an expensive *** player can switch positions?

Now 9, but yes since getting rid of him before the end of next season would be cap prohibitive (unless they can find someone willing to take on his contract).

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2021 at 2:31 PM, e16bball said:

That said, if it works to deploy Curl as a split safety alongside Deshazor Everett, why could it not work to do the same with Landon Collins? They can call Everett a FS all they want, I’ve seen him play for years, the man is tough and smart, but he’s definitely not your classic single-high centerfielder. Is Curl rangy enough to take over that role next to Collins? I don’t know the answer to that. I know he played CB for a while in college (which Everett also did), so that suggests he might be able to. But I will say that a lot of his draft profiles felt he lacked the range to play deep zones in the NFL. They seem to have proved to be wrong in some respects, though, so maybe he could do it.

That would be the preferred outcome, if those two could play together. If that’s not feasible, then I have to say I’ve warmed up to the Collins-to-WLB idea a bit. I usually hate “just switch his position” ideas, but that one might have some legs. Here’s a PFF article from before we signed Collins that actually suggested moving him to an off-ball LB spot.

I tried to figure out how an Everett-Collins-Curl triplet could work. The problem comes in when a team goes into their 11 personnel (1 RB, 1 TE ... so three wide). Either you need an All Decade middle linebacker, or someone's coming out for the third corner. If you are doing that, you end up with one of Curl or Collins as effectively a two down safety. One is a waste of cap space, one is a waste of promising talent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Woz said:

I tried to figure out how an Everett-Collins-Curl triplet could work. The problem comes in when a team goes into their 11 personnel (1 RB, 1 TE ... so three wide). Either you need an All Decade middle linebacker, or someone's coming out for the third corner. If you are doing that, you end up with one of Curl or Collins as effectively a two down safety. One is a waste of cap space, one is a waste of promising talent.

I would take the SLB off the field in that formation for the corner. Not Collins - the WLB - or Curl, the SS.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, turtle28 said:

I would take the SLB off the field in that formation for the corner. Not Collins - the WLB - or Curl, the SS.

 

Well, I was going on the assumption that Collins and Curl were safeties, as a way to use both but not have either change their position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Woz said:

Well, I was going on the assumption that Collins and Curl were safeties, as a way to use both but not have either change their position.

Are you saying having Curl & Collins as the two high safeties?

If you have two strong safeties in the game at the same time one of them is going to have to play closer to the line of scrimmage like a linebacker. 
 

The entire idea about moving Collins to LB is bc he’s not good in coverage. The closer to the line of scrimmage the more effective he is as a player, that’s always been the case.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mar29020 said:

cant we play him like a coverage LB? teams throw so much now i'm sure they could figure out how to get him on the field. 

Yes, that’s the plan. I’ve said they should’ve done that since we first found out we were moving back to the 4-3. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, taylor made said:

e9xkn6k91e961.jpg

 

Landon doesn't want to switch to LB

It’s a coaches decision. If he won’t do it, I don’t think Rivera will hesitate to try to trade him - not likely given his contract & coming off an injury - or cut him if he’s not going to play a position the coaches want him to because coaches think that’s what’s best for the team.

And Rivera/JDR may not even want to move Collins, this is all hypothetical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, turtle28 said:

Are you saying having Curl & Collins as the two high safeties?

If you have two strong safeties in the game at the same time one of them is going to have to play closer to the line of scrimmage like a linebacker. 
 

The entire idea about moving Collins to LB is bc he’s not good in coverage. The closer to the line of scrimmage the more effective he is as a player, that’s always been the case.

 

If you go back and read @e16bball's original thought, it was to try to keep both Curl and Collins as safeties while having a third safety (Everett or Reaves, I would guess) as the true high safety. I vaguely recall Gregg Williams (?) calling this the Cobra package back in the day.

The problem that I see with this is that it requires the team to have at least one uber-gifted middle linebacker because if/when the opposition goes three wide and you need your nickel formation, you really don't want Collins handling the underneath coverage stuff.

"Base"

  • 4 DL
  • 2 LB
  • 1 LB/S
  • 2 CB
  • 2 S

"Nickel"

  • 4 DL
  • 1 LB
  • 1 LB/S
  • 3 CB
  • 2 S
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...