Landon Collins hoping the Giants don’t franchise him in 2019

Getty Images

Giants safety Landon Collins is in the final season of his four-year rookie contract, and he hasn’t talked to the team about a new deal yet, which raises the question of whether the Giants plan to slap the franchise tag on him.

Collins hopes they don’t.

The 24-year-old two-time Pro Bowler told SNY that he wants the Giants either to lock him up to a long-term deal or let him see what other teams are willing to offer. He does not want to be franchised.

Honestly I don’t want it,” he said. “I know what type of player I am. I’m going to bring forth hard-work, talent, play-making abilities to the game each and every week. Why would I want to play under a one-year deal? If something happens I’m not guaranteed. And even though I’m guaranteed that for a year, I’m still not guaranteed.”

Collins said “It surprised the hell out of me” when he heard talk that he might get traded. He doesn’t necessarily want to play anywhere else, but if the Giants aren’t going to show him the money before the offseason, he’d like the opportunity to see what somebody else would offer.

30 responses to “Landon Collins hoping the Giants don’t franchise him in 2019

  1. In a sport in which career ending injuries are so commonplace, how did this 1-year franchise tag even become a thing?

    Seems crazy, and I don’t blame Collins or Bell or any other player from refusing to play under it.

  2. Has any player ever said anything different ?
    Of course they all want a long term deal.
    Unfortunately for LC until they come to a resolution with Eli and get his monstrous deal off their cap his deal is kind of in limbo.
    Most likely scenario is either Eli gets cut 9r retires and he gets his deal w/o franchise tag.

  3. Franchising a safety is relatively cheap. On a roster without any other obvious choices to be franchised Collins is staring down the barrel of the tag and he knows it. Sucks. One play away from being done forever, with only a one year contract and no other option.

  4. The reality is that the NFL is a business. If it makes sense for the team to franchise him, they will. His feelings have nothing to do with it.

  5. Other than occasionally kneeling last season, he’s been a leader on the field and in the locker room. Beckham was the one to franchise next year. He got paid and the clock is ticking on his next meltdown.

  6. carloswlassiter says:
    November 10, 2018 at 7:29 am
    In a sport in which career ending injuries are so commonplace, how did this 1-year franchise tag even become a thing?

    Seems crazy, and I don’t blame Collins or Bell or any other player from refusing to play under it.
    —–
    The tag first came about during negotiations into the first free agent market in the NFL. The owner of the Broncos in particular couldn’t stand possibly losing John Elway so he pushed hard for this new at the time vehicle to restrict a player’s movement after they’ve fulfilled their contractual obligations. At the time most people involved thought the only position that would be impacted was the QB position.

    In my opinion it was bad enough teams were allowed to limit a player’s movements but to give them the ability to do it up to 3 times in a violent sport in which a. The player comes into the league locked into a slotted 5 year rookie contract and b. The average career is 3 years is just plain ludicrous.

    And personally I blame the NFLPA for not fighting harder to limit or eliminate the tag in exchange for capping rookie salaries a few years ago.

  7. nflfollower says:
    November 10, 2018 at 7:39 am

    On a roster without any other obvious choices to be franchised Collins is staring down the barrel of the tag and he knows it. Sucks. One play away from being done forever, with only a one year contract and no other option.
    ————————————————————————————-
    He’s got to hold out and force a trade.

  8. From what I remember getting franchised in the early years was something that the players wanted because of the big increase in salary at their position. It’s looked at differently now.

  9. The only professional sporting league with such thing. The players Union is the weakest Union in all of sports. They keep DSmith as their leader only because he’s black. They don’t realize how much damage get some to the players. Hey in a real leader and make the next bargaining agreement one that takes all the power away from the owners and Roger. The players have no clue how much power they hold.

  10. He already said he doesnt want to be a part of a full rebuild. If the Giants tag him and have another lousy year in 2019 (they will be bad….maybe they win 5-6 games next year) you will be looking at one extremely disgruntled player.

  11. Well the Giants should attempt to sign him to long term contract. If he wants to sign a contract that makes sense to both the team and the player get it done. Otherwise, franchise tag is absolutely the way they should go. Why because he is absolutely a franchise safety. You don’t just let him walk without compensation. He should keep that in his mind when negotiating a long term deal. The tag is very likely if he refuses to sign what the team believes is a reasonable contract. The tag is the leverage the team has in negotiation. My bet is he gets tagged because he will want to get an outrageous cap killing contract. In looking at history I don’t know where giving a monster contract worked in favor of the team. That wasn’t a QB

  12. arwiv says:

    He already said he doesnt want to be a part of a full rebuild. If the Giants tag him and have another lousy year in 2019 (they will be bad….maybe they win 5-6 games next year) you will be looking at one extremely disgruntled player.
    __________________________________________________________________________

    So what? Should they let him walk and be worse or should they actually try to field a competitive team? As long as the CBA allows them to use the tag they should do it to their benefit. If he doesn’t want to be tagged he should work with the team to come to a long term contract that is fair for both the team and the player. It happens but many times these guys let ego and “respect” come into the equation.

  13. I may be wrong, or just not recall, but when was the last time someone held out (a la Bell) and derailed a teams season? Emmitt Smith had the Cowboys over a barrel, and got paid, what was back then, a lot of money. Teams generally, whether from injury or holdout, plug in someone else, and move on (scheme). From what I’m seeing in today’s NFL, other than QB, there is not a drastic fall off in talent level at most positions. In other words, most of the teams that remain in contention year after year don’t chase rainbows.

  14. “chuckaneer says:
    November 10, 2018 at 9:52 am
    From what I remember getting franchised in the early years was something that the players wanted because of the big increase in salary at their position. It’s looked at differently now.”
    —-
    It has definitely evolved as it being used or abused beyond it’s initial intentions by both sides. It was initially a poison pill for teams to use if they needed more time to resign “that” player. It meant the player likely got a big increase in pay for the next year, with no guarantees beyond the season. Both sides had incentive to work out a long term deal because of the big guaranteed salary for the team and the lack of long term guarantee for the players. What ended up happening is teams starting abusing it by double tagging players and players started abusing it by using it as the baseline for long term contracts negotiations. It has led to more players getting tagged and a rapid increase in salaries. What players need to realize is, if the tag goes away, the rate of increase in salaries will slow. They won’t have the one year huge number to use as a point of leverage, instead it will be based off the actual players value. What teams need to realize is they will have to be a bit more aggressive to keep their own players. In the end it will be better for the league to get rid of it and extend the 5th year option to 2nd round players as well. Best for both sides.

  15. The money value of the Franchise Tag has not kept up with the Salary cap increases…It used to be a deterrent because it took up so much cap space…with the growth in revenue and salary cap…the Franchise Tag has not only become a bargain for the team…but even the 2nd franchise tag is manageable…combine that with the facts teams can add a 5th year option to first rounders…teams can now hold hostage the top players in the game for up to 7 years!!!

    Boy does the NFLPA have their work cut out for them…

  16. The union doesn’t fight the franchise tag in CBA negotiations because it only affects the top players. The vast majority of players aren’t willing to give up something to the owners, over a few players every year. How many players get the franchise tag in an offseason? 5-10? So the hundreds of other rank and file players are going to worry about it? That’s why the franchise tag is still there. There’s no incentive for the majority if the union to fight it.

  17. They need to blow the whole thing up…after his issues with Eli Apple and talking in the press last year he comes off as a locker room cancer anyway.

  18. ctgiantfan says:
    The union doesn’t fight the franchise tag in CBA negotiations because it only affects the top players.
    ===

    In fact, it affects every player There’s always a lot of speculation on this subject, but few seem to know the real history of the tag.
    During bargaining of the 1992 CBA NFL owners finally accepted that free agency was inevitable. They didn’t want to develop players only to potentially lose them as they entered their prime, so they asked for five years on a rookie deal and a sixth option year for first-round players. The players union was willing to go only four and five.
    The owners eventually capitulated to the four and five plan, but only in exchange for the option to retain the rights to one free agent via the various versions of the tag.
    Bottom line: Every single player in the NFL that manages to stick in the league through his rookie deal reaches free agency — and that second, much bigger contract– one year earlier. In other words, a tiny handful of tagged players take a bullet every year for the benefit of every other player in the league, and they’re paid handsomely for doing it.
    I would agree that the parameters of the tag need to be adjusted to avoid multiple applications in the manner we saw with Kirk Cousins and Le’Veon Bell. But if you guys think the owners are going to just give the tag away after giving every player a shorter path to free agency you’re deluding yourselves.
    The players will have to give up something very significant in return. An eighteen-game season? The owners’ original five and six plan? A smaller guaranteed percentage of the salary cap? Who knows, but eliminating the tag is going to cost them big-time.

  19. jackedupboonie says:
    Franchise tag needs to start being 2 year guarantee with escalator calculated into 2nd year. That amount would stop teams from slapping them like sticky notes.
    ==

    Wholeheartedly agree.

  20. my_old_name_was_offensive says:
    November 10, 2018 at 11:38 am
    The money value of the Franchise Tag has not kept up with the Salary cap increases…
    ————————–

    That greatly depends on the position. Tag value certainly looks pretty good if you are an O-lineman, corner or QB. In Collins’ case the tag is particularly unattractive as the safety market went flat after a few years of rapid acceleration. Look no further than what happened with top FA safeties this past off season.

  21. He should quit football if he can’t take making $13,000,000 next season. A man of his talent should have no problem finding a job that pays as much. Just ask Le’veon Bell.

  22. Franchise tag really blows talented players, it isn’t fair that less talented players get richer and protected sooner against career ending injury.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!