Justin Simmons (S, Broncos) - Released

[Cheesteakitis]

8 hours ago, brkmsn said:

I'm not sure I understand what difference he would make in that regard. Blankenship and CJGJ are our starting safeties already and they are projected to be the starters for several years. There is no immediate need to draft a safety. If it's depth you're worried about, signing a vet to a 1-year deal hardly changes a draft strategy. Brown will eventually return and McCollum actually played well in his opportunity last season. Maddox also provides depth at safety.

 

It just doesn't look like adding another "starting" safety is in the Eagles' plans. 

If this organization is going into the draft thinking Blankenship is a starter for years to come they are screwed!!! He is solid but far from anything locked in.. I would instantly start Simmons over him based on his talent level and years in Fangio’s system. 
I easily see times where we could have 3 "safeties” on the field at the same time much rather Blankenship be the #3 and play in some packages be available if someone gets injured then him be the starter.

[brkmsn]

7 hours ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

Blankenship for me is fine but I’m not sold on him being a starter. And even if he is a starter he’s not a high level one and I’d feel a lot better if he was the #3. 

 

1 hour ago, Cheesteakitis said:

If this organization is going into the draft thinking Blankenship is a starter for years to come they are screwed!!! He is solid but far from anything locked in.. I would instantly start Simmons over him based on his talent level and years in Fangio’s system. 
I easily see times where we could have 3 "safeties” on the field at the same time much rather Blankenship be the #3 and play in some packages be available if someone gets injured then him be the starter.

Blankenship is a pretty sizable upgrade over Epps who was "solid" for us. I'm not sure where all this doubt about a young player starts, but he's showing all the signs of being a productive starting safety for the next few years. It took Simmons until his 4th year to do enough to get recognition. We all know that once you get recognition as a player, you tend to get awards based as much on the past as the present. Simmons is a 4-time 2nd team all pro, including last season. He played 15 games in 2023, had 70 tackles (combined), 2 TFL, 3 INTs, 8 PD, 2 FF, 1 FR and 1 sack. Blankenship played 15 games, had 113 tackles (combined), 2 TFL, 3 INTs, 11 PD, 1 FR, and 1 QB hit. PFF gave Simmons a grade of 67.9 on the season and Blankenship 73.4. Honestly, both players measure up pretty evenly, statistically and analytically. One is a young player that is still getting better and the other one is an experienced vet playing at approximately the same level. Simmons has an 8.7 career missed tackle percentage and Blankenship has an 8.2 career missed tackle percentage. 

Simmons has had a nice career, but only his career reputation is currently better than Blankenship. That's why he was a cap casualty and why Blankenship got an extension. Blankenship was also 2nd in the NFL in performance based pay in 2023 (behind John Simpson, ahead of Purdy) and 1st among defensive players. 

[time2rock]

I can certainly see where the doubts about Blank come from … he appears to be limited athletically.  However, I also see the side where it makes sense to let him continue to develop and see if he can grow into an all around solid starting safety.  I’ve been on the bandwagon of playing the younger guys to give them valuable learning experience knowing there will be bumps early (but hopeful to be rewarded in the end) for the past several years, so I’d be a hypocrite if I didn’t feel the same about Blank.  Personally I don’t want to bring in Simmons now that we’ve signed CJGJ (and I'd bet the FO is thinking the same).  I’d much rather use a day 3 pick to add another body to the competition to fill out the depth chart and push those ahead of him.  

[UK_EaglesFan89]

I think when someone says that a player is decent and an average starter people think that’s a huge dig. Blankenship was a UDFA (I believe) and so being an average starter is a huge achievement. But we can and we should be looking to upgrade. He’s a good #3 but he’s limited athletically and I think the S position needs improving.

[brkmsn]

3 hours ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

I think when someone says that a player is decent and an average starter people think that’s a huge dig. Blankenship was a UDFA (I believe) and so being an average starter is a huge achievement. But we can and we should be looking to upgrade. He’s a good #3 but he’s limited athletically and I think the S position needs improving.

Being solid is not a huge dig and Blankenship clearly is already proven to be solid. I just don't understand why people create these mythical "ceilings" for young players and act like "solid" is the most we can hope for. I also understand expectations and undrafted players aren't expected to become starters. When one does, he exceeds expectations by all accounts. So, I guess, believing he can improve beyond "solid" is too much to believe. Reed wasn't expected to even make the team as a rookie. Not only did he impress enough to make the team, he made the final roster. When injuries gave him an opportunity to play on defense, he played like one of the best players on the field. In his second year, he was a starter and was our best player in the secondary despite playing through a couple rib injuries. He was missed in the wild card game. 

Also, WTH does "limited athletically" mean exactly? Does that mean he's not "generationally" gifted? I mean ... yeah ... he's not the leader in any athletic measurement, but he's not near the back end of the group either. From Lance Zierlein: "Versatile safety with adequate size and good athleticism." I think a lot of people around here just parrot what other people around here say and that (limited athletically) is one example.