LJ Collier's contract numbers

AZCB34

ASFN Icon
Joined
Sep 23, 2002
Posts
14,167
Reaction score
5,936
Location
Mesa, AZ
Really they are just camp bodies with more experience and upside than normal I think. Usually the camp guys are some 3rd year guy that's bounced around 7 practice squads and hasn't played a snap in the league. Probably never made a 53.

At least these guys have dozens of starts each. No doubt they have sucked at their first teams but at least you have guys that know what's required.

If we signed Jim McDorkle who went undrafted in 2019 out of UTEP and has never made a roster nobody would even comment on it because obvious camp bod. I feel these are just better versions of that.

Hopefully.
McDorkle has a better grade than Collier.
 

kerouac9

Klowned by Keim
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Posts
37,419
Reaction score
27,609
Location
Gilbert, AZ
Point went right over your head.

I doubt Andy Reid reviews his 2022 tape extensively. Of course he okays it, but it's probably more of a "I trust your judgement" kind of thing.
Why double down on this? Just move on, man.

You went from "Andy Reid doesn't review free agents" to "I doubt Andy Reid reviews his 2022 tape extensively." It's his starting tackle! Andy Reid has been an offensive line fetishist for his entire career.

I'm sure it's not the case with like the Tanner Vallejos of the Kansas City roster, but Kansas City played Jacksonville twice last season, including once in the playoffs. It's more likely that Andy Reid has seen extensive cuts of this guy.
 

Krangodnzr

Captain of Team Murray
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Posts
35,671
Reaction score
32,679
Location
Orange County, CA
Why double down on this? Just move on, man.

You went from "Andy Reid doesn't review free agents" to "I doubt Andy Reid reviews his 2022 tape extensively." It's his starting tackle! Andy Reid has been an offensive line fetishist for his entire career.
That was a mistype on my part.
I'm sure it's not the case with like the Tanner Vallejos of the Kansas City roster, but Kansas City played Jacksonville twice last season, including once in the playoffs. It's more likely that Andy Reid has seen extensive cuts of this guy.
It's was just a use of the argument from authority logical fallacy that made me comment.

Sure Reid is an authority, but Taylor's numbers stand on their own. He is not a great player, nor has he ever been.
 

kerouac9

Klowned by Keim
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Posts
37,419
Reaction score
27,609
Location
Gilbert, AZ
Sure Reid is an authority, but Taylor's numbers stand on their own. He is not a great player, nor has he ever been.

1) Who said that he's a great player? Chopper certainly didn't. Chopper said that he's a young, improving player on an offensive line that is the second most-important asset in KC outside the guy they're protecting.

2) Offensive line numbers don't stand on their own, and you know that. They're placed inside a context of the style of offense played — that's immediately what Brit tried to do by re-framing his declining sack numbers by hand-waving it away with quick release nonsense.
 

Krangodnzr

Captain of Team Murray
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Posts
35,671
Reaction score
32,679
Location
Orange County, CA
1) Who said that he's a great player? Chopper certainly didn't. Chopper said that he's a young, improving player on an offensive line that is the second most-important asset in KC outside the guy they're protecting.

2) Offensive line numbers don't stand on their own, and you know that. They're placed inside a context of the style of offense played — that's immediately what Brit tried to do by re-framing his declining sack numbers by hand-waving it away with quick release nonsense.
Agree on these points, but if you're paying near top of the market price, you expect near top of the market production, not the middling to below average production that Taylor has posted thus far.

I wouldn't be happy with the cost if the Cardinals had signed him, but I don't think he's nearly as bad as @BritCard is making him out to be.

I just object to the fallacy of using Reids sign off as any indicator that this is a good move.
 

Chopper0080

2021 - Prove It
Joined
May 15, 2002
Posts
26,967
Reaction score
35,869
Location
Colorado
Agree on these points, but if you're paying near top of the market price, you expect near top of the market production, not the middling to below average production that Taylor has posted thus far.

I wouldn't be happy with the cost if the Cardinals had signed him, but I don't think he's nearly as bad as @BritCard is making him out to be.

I just object to the fallacy of using Reids sign off as any indicator that this is a good move.
I guess we will see.

In regards to Reid, the man has made offensive line a priority over his entire coaching career. There have been many GM, many scouts and many OCs, but Reid has been the constant. It is not by magic that all of these GMs know exactly what type of offensive lineman he wants and are able to draft them. Dude is involved.
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Posts
10,229
Reaction score
6,917
Location
Chandler
I guess we will see.

In regards to Reid, the man has made offensive line a priority over his entire coaching career. There have been many GM, many scouts and many OCs, but Reid has been the constant. It is not by magic that all of these GMs know exactly what type of offensive lineman he wants and are able to draft them. Dude is involved.
Just to be clear, you would have preferred the Cards sign Taylor for $20m per year vs Beachum at $3m? At least that's what I'm getting from the convo. I always thought you were the more reasonable & logical let alone more knowledgeable posters here. So it doesn't make sense that you would be preferring Taylor at that price. I understand debating the performance & grades but the price alone would put us out of the running I would think.
 

Chopper0080

2021 - Prove It
Joined
May 15, 2002
Posts
26,967
Reaction score
35,869
Location
Colorado
Just to be clear, you would have preferred the Cards sign Taylor for $20m per year vs Beachum at $3m? At least that's what I'm getting from the convo. I always thought you were the more reasonable & logical let alone more knowledgeable posters here. So it doesn't make sense that you would be preferring Taylor at that price. I understand debating the performance & grades but the price alone would put us out of the running I would think.
I believe that if your priority is upgrading the offensive line, getting a 25 year old who has improved his play every year and is one of the top 7 best OTs under 28, you do it. I made the same argument for extending Humphries when we did. The number is the number. Talent costs money, and young talent costs the most.

If you want to play the draft and develop game, these are the guys you sign to bridge the gaps. If you have The Captain for two more years and Taylor for four years, that gives you two years to find a replacement for Humphries while still having a viable OT on the roster. This is how winning teams progress their roster's year to year.

Our plan now is Beachum for two years and Humphries for two years, and Beachum is mid. If everything works perfect you are needing to fill two OT spots in two years. How does that make sense. All it does is force you to fill specific holes you are creating with a bad structure. This is how you get rosters where 4 of 5 starting offensive linemen are FAs in the same year with little talent behind them.
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Posts
10,229
Reaction score
6,917
Location
Chandler
I believe that if your priority is upgrading the offensive line, getting a 25 year old who has improved his play every year and is one of the top 7 best OTs under 28, you do it. I made the same argument for extending Humphries when we did. The number is the number. Talent costs money, and young talent costs the most.

If you want to play the draft and develop game, these are the guys you sign to bridge the gaps. If you have The Captain for two more years and Taylor for four years, that gives you two years to find a replacement for Humphries while still having a viable OT on the roster. This is how winning teams progress their roster's year to year.

Our plan now is Beachum for two years and Humphries for two years, and Beachum is mid. If everything works perfect you are needing to fill two OT spots in two years. How does that make sense. All it does is force you to fill specific holes you are creating with a bad structure. This is how you get rosters where 4 of 5 starting offensive linemen are FAs in the same year with little talent behind them.
I agree with what you are saying but I don't agree with signing Taylor @ $20M. I don't think it's the same situation as Hump for one. It may be because I've watched DJ since he was drafted & don't know a ton about Taylor other than reports on sport sites. Also if we were to match that offer or even go a little more, it's hard to say he would have chosen the Cards vs KC.
 

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,330
Reaction score
37,828
Location
UK
Agree on these points, but if you're paying near top of the market price, you expect near top of the market production, not the middling to below average production that Taylor has posted thus far.

I wouldn't be happy with the cost if the Cardinals had signed him, but I don't think he's nearly as bad as @BritCard is making him out to be.

I just object to the fallacy of using Reids sign off as any indicator that this is a good move.

He's bad in comparison to what he's getting paid.

He's worth somewhere from $12-$14m as an average RT is you never run his direction. And I wouldn't tie myself in long term, I'd want an out after 2 years, because his "ascension" is paper thin.
 

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,330
Reaction score
37,828
Location
UK
1) Who said that he's a great player? Chopper certainly didn't. Chopper said that he's a young, improving player on an offensive line that is the second most-important asset in KC outside the guy they're protecting.

2) Offensive line numbers don't stand on their own, and you know that. They're placed inside a context of the style of offense played — that's immediately what Brit tried to do by re-framing his declining sack numbers by hand-waving it away with quick release nonsense.

"Improving player" is such a stretch.

I guess it's technically true in that he was really, really bad and now he's just below average but it's being used as if he was average and is now good and on a path to great.

But if after 4 years you're only "decent pass blocker and garbage run blocker" that's not something I want to hang $20m on no matter what his age.

It's a fallacy that players keep improving just because they are young. They learn on a curve and after 4 years they have achieved most of what they can. He can still get better, but not my much. He's never going to be a Pro Bowl or All pro level player.

Caleb McGary who got a multi year deal for only $11.5m would be a far better add than Taylor. He had the 2nd highest run block win rate in the league last year and his best year in pass pro. He still has room to improve there but at least we have room to maneuver and could possibly have brought him in for $12m or $12.5m.
 

Chopper0080

2021 - Prove It
Joined
May 15, 2002
Posts
26,967
Reaction score
35,869
Location
Colorado
I agree with what you are saying but I don't agree with signing Taylor @ $20M. I don't think it's the same situation as Hump for one. It may be because I've watched DJ since he was drafted & don't know a ton about Taylor other than reports on sport sites. Also if we were to match that offer or even go a little more, it's hard to say he would have chosen the Cards vs KC.
I view Taylor and Humphries very similarly. Ultimately, my overall point is that there was young talent available in FA and Monti chose to pass on it. He passed on keeping our young talent or signing other young talent at key positions. It was a missed opportunity to add a piece to build around or at least bridge the gap of development.
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Posts
10,229
Reaction score
6,917
Location
Chandler
I view Taylor and Humphries very similarly. Ultimately, my overall point is that there was young talent available in FA and Monti chose to pass on it. He passed on keeping our young talent or signing other young talent at key positions. It was a missed opportunity to add a piece to build around or at least bridge the gap of development.
But it's a lot more complicated than just saying ''Monti chose to pass on it''. There's a ton of factors involved in making that decision.
 
Top