Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 35
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Atoka, Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,876

    Would Landon Collins be a good FA signing?

    https://giantswire.usatoday.com/2019...n-collins/amp/

    I have it in my mind that Collins is a real good safety, but I also like some of our young guys. Would he be worth the cost to upgrade our secondary?
    Personal goals: GOAL WEIGHT = 250lbs
    Weight loss needed for FGW = 120 lbs
    Weight lost so far: - 24 lbs

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    524
    I personally dont see safety as a need. I think Simmons is good and I think Cravens will be really good under Fangio.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yorkshire, England
    Posts
    1,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Orangecrush21 View Post
    I personally dont see safety as a need. I think Simmons is good and I think Cravens will be really good under Fangio.
    Parks will be better aswell, I can see Stewart been cut and us drafting a safety late in the draft

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Lone Tree
    Posts
    2,294
    Yes - Collins would be a huge addition. Box safety that is also a playmaker. We do not have that kind of safety on our roster. Price will probably be too high though.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,931
    Quote Originally Posted by JW7 View Post
    Yes - Collins would be a huge addition. Box safety that is also a playmaker. We do not have that kind of safety on our roster. Price will probably be too high though.
    I would rather see Parks or Cravens attempt to fill that role. We need to spend whatever is necessary to get Mosely.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    the gulf of mexico
    Posts
    15,925
    Quote Originally Posted by JW7 View Post
    Yes - Collins would be a huge addition. Box safety that is also a playmaker. We do not have that kind of safety on our roster. Price will probably be too high though.
    We donít have any that fill the playmaking portion although I think Simmons would do better in coverage at SS but all of our safeties are more suited to play SS than FS. We need someone that can cover centerfield and eliminate mistakes on the back end.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    DENVER
    Posts
    260
    Collins would play that Ward role of in-box safety that is great against the run. Simmons could be the cover guy. I think it all depends on how they feel about Cravens and Parks, I think Stewart is gone.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    524
    Quote Originally Posted by OurHouse View Post
    Collins would play that Ward role of in-box safety that is great against the run. Simmons could be the cover guy. I think it all depends on how they feel about Cravens and Parks, I think Stewart is gone.
    Isnt that basically what they brought Cravens in for? That and to cover the TE?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    994
    Quote Originally Posted by Orangecrush21 View Post
    Isnt that basically what they brought Cravens in for? That and to cover the TE?
    And he didnít do either. We need playmakers. Fangio will have ALOT of input for this defense and I think Cravens is done here.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Derby, Kansas, United States
    Posts
    27,087
    Quote Originally Posted by KWHIT97 View Post
    I would rather see Parks or Cravens attempt to fill that role. We need to spend whatever is necessary to get Mosely.
    We can realistically do both. With the increase in total cap this year, we're going to be up around $35-40 million and there are several moves we could make to easily go above that. I don't think safety is as big of a need as O-line, CB and MLB, but it would be doable.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Derby, Kansas, United States
    Posts
    27,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Orangecrush21 View Post
    Isnt that basically what they brought Cravens in for? That and to cover the TE?
    Yea and he was basically useless since he didn't see the field all year and didn't play great when he finally did.


  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Lone Tree
    Posts
    2,294
    Quote Originally Posted by Orangecrush21 View Post
    Isnt that basically what they brought Cravens in for? That and to cover the TE?
    He was brought in here to do that but showed us that he can't and also complained about being deactivated. Seems to me that he wants to be handed a role rather than earn it. At this point I hope they spend more time on Parks and cut loose Cravens. He can change my mind but to this point he doesn't seem invested.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    DENVER
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by Orangecrush21 View Post
    Isnt that basically what they brought Cravens in for? That and to cover the TE?
    It is, that's why I said it depends on what they think of him and Parks. If they don't fit I can see us targeting a safety in FA.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    438
    I'd give Cravens another year. Hard to tell what Fangio can do with him. But if he ever decides to get his head out of......the clouds, he has all pro talent. Collins would be a great fit for this team. Him and Harris would give a lot of offenses fits.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    994
    What we are missing in the secondary is someone who lays the lumber, makes you think twice about going over the middle, knock your socks off centerfielder in the days of Dennis Smith, Steve Atwater and TJ Ward. Iím good with Landon Collins. The last few years, the center of the field has been the problem. Tight ends, slot receivers would kill us. Collins would be great there with Simmons.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •