View Full Version : Simon Deal Not So Sweet

09-04-2005, 07:41 PM
This is from Profootballtalk...

The contract signed by defensive tackle Corey Simon with the Colts is, upon careful inspection, not nearly as great as reported.

The issue is the $13 million in bonus money, which has been characterized in some circles as a "signing" bonus and as "guaranteed" money.

It's neither.

The only presently guaranteed money for Simon is his $5 million signing bonus, which is $134,000 less than the guarantee he would have gotten if he'd signed his one-year franchise tender with the Eagles.

His $540,000 salary, of course, will be guaranteed as of Week One of the regular season, since he's a vested veteran. So his net gain by not signing the tender is only $406,000.

And beyond 2005, nothing is guaranteed.

If the Colts walk away before paying the $8 million option bonus, Simon will be on the market, without restriction. Thus, he's got no more long-term security in Indy than he would have had by playing under the one-year franchise tender.

If, in turn, Simon has a monster year and the Colts pay the option bonus, Simon picks up an $8 million option bonus. And that's the same thing as playing under the one-year franchise tender and signing a free-agent contract in 2006 with an $8 million signing bonus.

And an $8 million signing bonus following a monster year for a high-end defensive tackle would be well below the market rate.

So why not take the tender for 2005 and hit the market in 2006, when he would have gotten bonus money well in excess of $8 million?

The only risk arising from taking the tender and waiting a year would have been that the player could suffer an injury that won't make him attractive to teams in 2006. But given the deal signed by Simon with the Colts, he has assumed that same risk.

That's why we firmly believe that Simon's agent, Roosevelt Barnes, would have instructed Simon to sign the Eagles' tender by the Tuesday, September 6 deadline, report to the team, collect his $5.13 million this year, and hit the market in 2006.

Sure, the Eagles might have slapped him with the tag again. But his tender in 2006 would have moved to $6.156 million. So he could have taken the one-year deal and waited again.

In the past, Barnes played this game to perfection with the Seahawks and left tackle Walter Jones. Jones pocketed three years of big-money franchise tenders before signing a long-term deal.

And the Eagles were smart enough to see it coming with Simon. Sure, they lost the player by removing the tag, but Simon is in no better position now than he would have been if he'd just signed the tender.

09-04-2005, 08:17 PM
I knew all of that already. I'm just happy he's on the roster.

09-04-2005, 10:46 PM
At least he will have some motivation to play well.

09-05-2005, 11:51 AM
Yeah, when I saw the thread title, I thought there was some provision not made public yet that screwed the Colts.

It's a great deal as far as we're concerned. May not be for him, but he looked pretty happy on Saturday.

09-05-2005, 01:49 PM
[QUOTE=Kegboy]Yeah, when I saw the thread title, I thought there was some provision not made public yet that screwed the Colts. /QUOTE]

Thats what I thought too. It's actually the opposite.

McClintic Sphere
09-05-2005, 05:52 PM
But Simon must believe this is just the right situation to allow him to stand out and maiximize his value. He seemed quite certain he'd made the right decision during his p.c. I'm not that expert on NFL defensive alignments. Can anyone elaborate on how his assignments will differ in the Dungy system vs. the Jim Johnson one in Philly?

McClintic Sphere
09-05-2005, 06:16 PM
In the Eagles system, he was required to cover two gaps. Bascally, it was his job to tie up as many offensive lineman as possible and hold his ground to allow the back 7 players to make plays on the ball, whether it be a running play or passing play. In the Colts system, he's in a one gap assignment. It's his job to cover an area, and get upfield as quickly as possible (without losing containment on that area). He's going to be playing on the shoulder of an offensive guard, and will be frequently single covered (because of Freeney) and able to get into the backfield quickly. It IS a much better situation for his talent.

While he has the size, experience, and ability to play the NT position (and thus be asked to take on more blockers), he'll likely spend most of his time at the UT position (which is what Sapp played in Tampa). It should be a perfect fit for his ability to get to the passer, and play stout against the run.

The Eagles system tries to emphasize the strengths of it's secondary. The Colts system tries to utilize the talent of it's defensive lineman. We can finally do that from the interior line this year (we've seen what our pass rushers can do).

Sounds Perfect. Now if Tripplet, Josh Williams and Montae Reagor, can combine to fill out the other tackle positions adequately we could be quite the be-atch. I was disgusted by the Kendyll Pope f-up, because it seemed he had some talent, but I don't think our LB's will be as challenged if OG's and OT's aren't getting to them so easily.
Our D does seem predicated on getting a lead and then as Mr. Burns would say,"unleash the hounds"(Freeney, Mathis)

McClintic Sphere
09-05-2005, 06:31 PM
Williams was placed on the PUP. He's not eligible to come off that list until after Week 6.

Kendell Pope pisseed me off too. The guy oozes speed and talent in this system, but obviously can't stay clean.

The D is designed perfectly for the offense, but it has lacked an ability to reliably hold a team if the offense isn't clicking. It now has the player that can help stop opposing running backs from averaging 5 yards a carry.

Didn't know that about JW, I guess another good reason we got Simon. Speaking of the 5 yds a carry, I haven't heard anyhing on Jamal Lewis's availability for 9/11. I don't have much fear of Kyle Boller though, and if we do get a lead it will be fun to watch Freeney repeat his turnstyle act on Jonathon Ogden. He just had that guy wanting to hide under the bench last year, And on National t.v. to boot.