2024 Safety Free Agents...some I have noted or like...

[AmishMafia]

So the seahawks cut Jamal Adams. He is only 28. Wonder if he is worth a look. PFF says meh with a 54.9. Maybe being cut because of new system in Seattle and not performance related.

I see now he has only played 10 games in last 2 years. Not sure we need that level of availability. Depends on the nature of the injuries.

 

[Dantés]

While possible, I don't think it'll play out like that. A good, single-high safety would thrive in a 2-deep scheme. If anything, he might feast because he, in theory, has less ground to cover. And he still makes the job of the other safety easier.

Corners you can sometimes cheap out in cover-2, because they're primarily flat coverage. Free Safety is always Free Safety.

Box safety can be depressed because they tend not to be able to 2-deep as well.

I don't think that's how it works.

There's no point in running a ton of 2 high AND paying your safeties elite money. Free safety is not always free safety. That's the whole point. Some defenses ask guys to play single high all the time and some very little. One of the advantages of cover 4 and two high shells is that you don't have to ask a lot of your safeties in terms of range/coverage, so you can save cap room there and reinvest it.

I think you're seeing some evidence of this in the league-- safety contracts have been flat or even have deflated over the last couple of seasons as the 2 high thing has spread.

 

[Dantés]

So the seahawks cut Jamal Adams. He is only 28. Wonder if he is worth a look. PFF says meh with a 54.9. Maybe being cut because of new system in Seattle and not performance related.

I see now he has only played 10 games in last 2 years. Not sure we need that level of availability. Depends on the nature of the injuries.

He's a pretty lousy football player in my opinion.

 

[mradtke66]

I don't think that's how it works.

There's no point in running a ton of 2 high AND paying your safeties elite money. Free safety is not always free safety. That's the whole point. Some defenses ask guys to play single high all the time and some very little. One of the advantages of cover 4 and two high shells is that you don't have to ask a lot of your safeties in terms of range/coverage, so you can save cap room there and reinvest it.

I think you're seeing some evidence of this in the league-- safety contracts have been flat or even have deflated over the last couple of seasons as the 2 high thing has spread.

The problem is assuming things are static.

A good FS can excel in any scheme. Good players do that. And their job doesn't change all that much in cover-1, cover-2, cover-3, or cover-4. It's just a question of how much field they are expected to protect. Though of course, cover-1 demands the most due to the space they are responsible for.

Shell defenses (can) take the pressure of your corners more than your safeties.

 

[Dantés]

The problem is assuming things are static.

A good FS can excel in any scheme. Good players do that. And their job doesn't change all that much in cover-1, cover-2, cover-3, or cover-4. It's just a question of how much field they are expected to protect. Though of course, cover-1 demands the most due to the space they are responsible for.

Shell defenses (can) take the pressure of your corners more than your safeties.

I fundamentally disagree with you.

You're right that things aren't static. And if there's a big swing back towards cover 1/3 this offseason, that will change the market. However, if the 2 high shell approach remains more common for now, it will make safeties cheaper to acquire and mean less serious competition for true post safeties.

A safety's job changes dramatically in those coverages. How much field they are expected to protect is far and away the most important aspect of the position. Being asked to cover a deep quarter vs a third vs a half vs the whole field are huge differences. A player could easily be a good coverage safety in cover 4 or even cover 2 and yet have no ability to handle cover 1 responsibilities.

It's that last point that I'm making. Being able to play single-high is the hardest/rarest aspect of safety play. Hence, it costs the most money. If you don't plan to use it, there's no sense paying for it, and by and large the 2 high teams don't.

 

[Schultz]

So the seahawks cut Jamal Adams. He is only 28. Wonder if he is worth a look. PFF says meh with a 54.9. Maybe being cut because of new system in Seattle and not performance related.

I see now he has only played 10 games in last 2 years. Not sure we need that level of availability. Depends on the nature of the injuries.

IMO the other guy they cut is more interesting.

 

[mradtke66]

It's that last point that I'm making. Being able to play single-high is the hardest/rarest aspect of safety play. Hence, it costs the most money. If you don't plan to use it, there's no sense paying for it, and by and large the 2 high teams don't.

I read that as a different argument. I don't see ideal cover-1 safeties ever being a depressed market. They are rare enough that they will get paid regardless. Similarly, safety salaries are probably down because there are so few of those special ones. The Ed Reeds, Earl Thomases of the world will always get paid because they will make any defense better.

My static comment, which I realize I never typed out, was more to the idea that even if Halfey loves him some cover1 and cover-3, it has fallen out of favor in the modern NFL. He might run it more than every other team and (hypothetically) only run it 1/3 of the time. He'll need to fall back to 2-deep the other times. He might call cover-1 and have to shift to cover-2 or cover-4 based on motion (the inverse should also be true.)

I hope that he's able to adapt to whatever personnel we have and the weekly game plan and the down and distance.

 

[Dantés]

I read that as a different argument. I don't see ideal cover-1 safeties ever being a depressed market. They are rare enough that they will get paid regardless. Similarly, safety salaries are probably down because there are so few of those special ones. The Ed Reeds, Earl Thomases of the world will always get paid because they will make any defense better.

My static comment, which I realize I never typed out, was more to the idea that even if Halfey loves him some cover1 and cover-3, it has fallen out of favor in the modern NFL. He might run it more than every other team and (hypothetically) only run it 1/3 of the time. He'll need to fall back to 2-deep the other times. He might call cover-1 and have to shift to cover-2 or cover-4 based on motion (the inverse should also be true.)

I hope that he's able to adapt to whatever personnel we have and the weekly game plan and the down and distance.

Less competition for a given skillset is always going to depress the market, even if it still remains expensive. Look up the top safety contracts and you will see that the top of the market is dominated by teams that like to bring pressure and don't major in this 2 high shell world that has been a recent fad. Those teams aren't competing for the really good safeties because their schemes can deal with not having them. And when they get out of the discussion, competition decreases while supply remains static-- hence, the price falls.

This is why Minkah Fitzpatrick got 18.4M AAV in 2022 and then, a season later, Jessie Bates III got 16M AAV.

Fitzpatrick is a better player than Bates (though not dramatically so), but consider:

-The cap increased by 8% in that year, and Bates still got less money.
-Bates hit the open market (where guys get paid more) whereas Fitz signed an extension, and Bates still got less money.
-Bates was basically the only good FA option for a team that wanted to feature a lot of single high, and Bates still got less money.

Here was the blurb about Bates' free agency (italics are mine):

Bates, who played 2022 on the franchise tag, is likely out of Cincinnati after the Bengals drafted his presumed replacement, Daxton Hill. Bates has more value to a team that plays with a single high safety the majority of the time, although there are fewer of those teams every season.

 

[OldSchool101]

The only static I want to see on our Defense is STATIC ELECTRICITY!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[mradtke66]

Fitzpatrick is a better player than Bates (though not dramatically so), but consider:

-The cap increased by 8% in that year, and Bates still got less money.
-Bates hit the open market (where guys get paid more) whereas Fitz signed an extension, and Bates still got less money.
-Bates was basically the only good FA option for a team that wanted to feature a lot of single high, and Bates still got less money.

I think the safety market is just depressed period. The league likes to crap on the position unless you're Ed Reed.

I like to draw parallels between offense and defense. Safety's match is probably tight end. Super valuable, but the league doesn't value the position the same way. Very much the opposite compared to cornerback and wide receiver.

> Bates has more value to a team that plays with a single high safety the majority of the time

The issue with that statement is why is his value pigeon holed? Is he bad at the other parts of the general job of safety?

 

[Dantés]

I think the safety market is just depressed period. The league likes to crap on the position unless you're Ed Reed.

I like to draw parallels between offense and defense. Safety's match is probably tight end. Super valuable, but the league doesn't value the position the same way. Very much the opposite compared to cornerback and wide receiver.

> Bates has more value to a team that plays with a single high safety the majority of the time

The issue with that statement is why is his value pigeon holed? Is he bad at the other parts of the general job of safety?

Yes, safety hasn't been treated as a premium position, but I'm saying it's gone flat/backwards in recent seasons. That's different. Something has impacted the safety market and I'm saying it's probably the propagation of 2 high shells.

Maybe an analogy would be helpful.

Say I'm living on a fixed income (parallel to a salary capped league) and I need to buy a new vehicle (parallel to a player) for work and general use.

So I assess my needs and desires and find that a pick-up truck would be the best. I have children, so I will need a crew-cab even if it costs more. I like Fords, so I look at...

An F-150 (less expensive)
An F-250 (more expensive)

I note that the F-250 is more expensive specifically because of its higher payload-- it can haul more. But I also note that the payload capacity of an F-150 is more than adequate for anything I will ever need.

Given that I'm on a fixed income, which will I choose? Unless I'm an idiot, I'll buy the cheaper truck that can do everything I need. Why would I pay more for something I will never use?

So now think about safeties. Yes, of course Bates can do more than play single high. But the other things he can do are relatively cheap and easy to find. Why pay him near the top of the market if I'm not going to use the skillset that demands the premium price? That doesn't make any sense. Not to me and apparently not to NFL teams.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

Xavier or bust (draft).

 

[PackerDNA]

I feel that they're going to address the safety position in both the draft and free agency/trade. They're going to have plenty of options. I hope that one of those options isn't bringing back Savage.

 

[PikeBadger]

Xavier or bust (draft).

Who is Xavier?

 

[PikeBadger]

From the list of free agent safeties that are currently out there, which of these guys are good at covering TE's and have been successful blitzing in the past?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Agreed, but with Winfield Jr being tagged...McKinney just added a few millions no doubt possibly to his deal.

I watched an interview with McKinney (below). I really like the guy. His talent on the field is pretty obvious. Off the field, I like what I read and hear. He appears to be a good guy, appreciative, loved in the community and smart. Would love if he was only worth what Spotrac is valuing him at (5 year $52M), but no way he goes that cheap.

If safety wasn't such an incredible need right now, I would be fine with waiting for the draft. However, that isn't the case and Gute may need to shell out some money on at least 1, if not 2 guys. The question is, do you break the bank with just 1 guy like McKinney and draft the 2nd guy. Or go with 2 FA safeties that are in the middle income bracket.

I wouldn't be disappointed with a McKinney signing.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Add another potential Target at Safety for the Packers.

Ian Rapoport of NFL Network reported that the Denver Broncos are releasing Justin Simmons, a two-time Pro Bowler and four-time All-Pro at safety.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Is it .....Safe to say.....lots of quality FA Safeties out there. Perfect timing for the Packers. Go get 1-2 of them next week Gute!

Do the Dance Gute!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[OldSchool101]

Is it .....Safe to say.....lots of quality FA Safeties out there. Perfect timing for the Packers. Go get 1-2 of them next week Gute!

Do the Dance Gute!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

As crazy as it sounds? With all the options it might not be entirely out of the question this year. Especially if it doesn’t greatly affect any potential comp picks

 

[tynimiller]

As crazy as it sounds? With all the options it might not be entirely out of the question this year. Especially if it doesn’t greatly affect any potential comp picks

The cut guys would have zero impact, which is one reason why I love the idea of ILB Baker Miami cut.

 

[Thirteen Below]

As crazy as it sounds? With all the options it might not be entirely out of the question this year. Especially if it doesn’t greatly affect any potential comp picks

And that's the icing on the cake - with all these safeties being let go by their existing teams, we could easily stock up on two starting-caliber safeties without having any effect at all on any comp picks for us next season. Gute likes his comp picks.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The players that the Packers are losing via Free Agency aren't going to create a whole lot in Compensatory picks. In order I would say Savage, Dillon, Nixon, Runyan and Nijman might factor into what they get in 2025. That said, I wouldn't pass on signing a high end FA just to avoid losing a late 6th round comp pick. Yes, comp picks are extra picks, extra players and nice to have, but so are high end starters in positions of need.

 

[sschind]

The players that the Packers are losing via Free Agency aren't going to create a whole lot in Compensatory picks. In order I would say Savage, Dillon, Nixon, Runyan and Nijman might factor into what they get in 2025. That said, I wouldn't pass on signing a high end FA just to avoid losing a late 6th round comp pick. Yes, comp picks are extra picks, extra players and nice to have, but so are high end starters in positions of need.

I agree. Playing the comp pick game can be a smart thing to do but if you have a chance to improve your team you can't let it be an influence.

I'd rather sign two of the better free agents and get no picks rather than a few bottom of the barrel guys and get a couple of late day three picks.

 

[OldSchool101]

The players that the Packers are losing via Free Agency aren't going to create a whole lot in Compensatory picks. In order I would say Savage, Dillon, Nixon, Runyan and Nijman might factor into what they get in 2025. That said, I wouldn't pass on signing a high end FA just to avoid losing a late 6th round comp pick. Yes, comp picks are extra picks, extra players and nice to have, but so are high end starters in positions of need.

Agreed. Sounds like this would be another + to being active in FA for several reasons.
1. We should be able to free up adequate cap space, which was a struggle with Rodger’s monster balloon contract (and several others)
2. There really is a definitive need for experience due to being back trending “Win Now”
3. We have several players with expiring deals, but they are pedestrian level production. Runyon Jr, Campbell, Dillon and Savage are all players with sizable market value that we could replace from outside FA or the draft if necessary.
4. The compensatory formula would have little (no expiring departures that will command Big deals) to zero bearing (as mentioned above by Tyni if it’s a cut).

 

[Thirteen Below]

Agreed. Sounds like this would be another + to being active in FA for several reasons.
1. We should be able to free up adequate cap space, which was a struggle with Rodger’s monster balloon contract (and several others)
2. There really is a definitive need for experience due to being back trending “Win Now”

Jeez, man.... good summary. I wish I could be so concise.

I have no specific rebuttal or addition to offer, other than to say that I couldn't disagree with the bulk of that even if I wanted to, and I think you summed up a lot of good observaitions all in one bundle. But you got me thinking about a couple of things...

This is one big reason I'd like to see us solve the Safety Problem mostly in free agency. It seems clear at this point we can pretty comfortably get two soild safeties on the free agent market at a very affordable price point, and if we bring in a couple of reliable and experienced vets at that position, they will help stabilize the entire defense with their presence and their "quarterbacking" of the defensive backfield - and even the linebackers. Our linebacker group will most be young for the next couple of years, and haing a Woodson back there behind them will give them a lot of confidence.

I'm no GM, just an average (and probably over-opionated) fan, but it really seems to me that there is no other position on the D where it would be more useful to add some veteran leadership than safety (maybe no other position on the whole team, other than quarterback, where I think we are already pretty much committed.) The kids could use a big brother at safety. It really looks now like we could solve the entire safety problem with UFAs, and rely on the draft to strengthen other positions of immediate and/or short term need and still add longer term depth/competition to the safety position with a draft pick or two.

3. We have several players with expiring deals, but they are pedestrian level production. Runyon Jr, Campbell, Dillon and Savage are all players with sizable market value that we could replace from outside FA or the draft if necessary.

This a good point; some of of our vets will only be at their prime for a couple of more years, and are already starting to slide down out of their "windows" while the team as a whole is climbing into our window of prime Super Bowl contention. As good as some of them may still be coming out of 2023, this would be a good time to start preparing for who is going to be playing those positions 2 years from now. Especially when we have so much draft capital to invest.

I'm going to go way out a limb there, though, and suggest that these idea have probably crossed Gutekunsts's mind as well.

4. The compensatory formula would have little (no expiring departures that will command Big deals) to zero bearing (as mentioned above by Tyni if it’s a cut).

Yeah.... I know I'm the one who mentioned earlier that it would be icing on the cake if we can sign free agents this year who won't cost us any comp picks next year, but I didn't put any more than a half second's thought into that, and realized later that a lot of people may have thought that I assigned a lot of value to it.

I don't. And didn't. It's sort of along the lines of the "free Frosty keytag" at Wendy's, where last December I paid 99 cents for a tag that gives me a free Frosty every time i buy a burger at Wendy's for the entire year of 2024. It's not a reason to get in the car and drive to Wendy's, but if I'm buying a burger there anyway, it's nice to get a free Frosty to go with it.

As long as it's choclate. The vanilla ones taste like melted plastic.