Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

26 Jul 2011

Report: Quintin Mikell Agrees To Four-Year Deal With Rams

Adam Schefter is reporting that Eagles safety Quintin Mikell has agreed to a four-year deal with the Rams. Per Schefter on TV, the total compensation will be $28 million.

Posted by: Rivers McCown on 26 Jul 2011

18 comments, Last at 27 Jul 2011, 8:58pm by chemical burn

Comments

1
by Marko :: Tue, 07/26/2011 - 6:42pm

Actually, Schefter is not reporting that Mikell has signed a four-year deal with the Rams. He is reporting that the Rams have reached a four-year agreement with Mikell. Veteran free agents cannot sign deals until Friday.

2
by Rivers McCown :: Tue, 07/26/2011 - 7:47pm

Picky!

Noted.

8
by johnnie walker (not verified) :: Wed, 07/27/2011 - 3:03am

So uh, while we're on the subject of picky your phrasing implies that Mikell is, or will soon be, under contract with two teams. Also, hey, new writer. Welcome! *cough*

9
by Intropy :: Wed, 07/27/2011 - 3:56am

Not necessarily. Mikell could be a safety for the Eagles but have an "agreement" with the Rams for whenever they play.

3
by Theo :: Tue, 07/26/2011 - 8:07pm

So he didn't sign a four-year deal with the Rams, the Rams reached a four-year agreement with him.

4
by chemical burn :: Tue, 07/26/2011 - 8:48pm

I think this is the first time in years the Eagles have let a veteran free agent go that I really question what they're doing. Normally, when they let a guy walk, he's clearly on the downside of his career, even if he has a couple seasons left in the tank (Dawkins, Trotter, Hugh Douglas, Hank Fraley.) That's not the case with Mikell - he was the glue holding that defense together for the past 2 years and the lone player in the secondary that could be trusted to be in the right position and make a textbook play. Samuel is great, but a gambler playing in front of 2 novice safeties makes me very nervous. I suppose I should start believing the rumors that they are transitioning to a Tampa-2 and they don't want to spend money on a FS... but where does Samuel fit in? Don't like this move one bit - a shakey defense just lost its best back 7 player...

5
by Arkaein :: Tue, 07/26/2011 - 9:59pm

I don't follow Eagles rumors, but wouldn't a Tampa 2 be a horrible fit for the Eagles, given what you've said? Tampa 2 requires fairly reliable safeties, even if those safeties don't have to be big playmakers, and Tampa 2 CBs need to be pretty good in run support given how much time they spend close to the LOS. Great coverage skills also seem wasted on Tampa 2 CBs.

Doesn't sound like the plan I would use with Samuel and inexperienced safeties.

6
by chemical burn :: Tue, 07/26/2011 - 10:54pm

No, the plan sounds horrible. I thought a lot of Tampa 2 teams gave the safeties easier responsibilities than most defenses - certainly whatever assignments they would have in Tampa 2 are simpler than they would've had in the Jim Johnson/McD scheme. But, yeah, it sounds like just a horrible idea, considering how it requires good, experienced LB's and the Eagles' could not at this point be charitably called anything beyond "promising."

7
by tuluse :: Wed, 07/27/2011 - 12:48am

Tampa 2 is all about simplicity, but that doesn't mean easier. A major reason for the popularity of the Tampa 2 is that it shifts coverage responsibilities from the corners to the safeties. So you can get away with worse corners or corners specifically suited to certain tasks. There is a reason that Bob Sanders, John Lynch, and Mike Brown were so important to their respective teams.

In my judgement the Eagle's personnel is almost exactly the opposite of what you want for a good Tampa 2 defense. You need fast linebackers who can play in space, fundamentally sound safeties and physical corners who really understand zone concepts. To me it looks like the Eagles corners are by and large (if not exclusively) more suited to man coverage, the safeties are mistake prone (but maybe simpler concepts will help them there), and the linebackers lack awareness in coverage.

I guess you guys have a good pass rushing line, but that seems like it.

11
by Dean :: Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:11am

The other part of the Tampa 2 system that is a horrible fit for the Eagles is that if you want to play Tampa 2, it’s VITAL to have a LB (Jack Lambert, Derrick Brooks) who can cover the tight end. If you can’t do that, it’s a dealbreaker. You simply cannot make the system work if you can’t cover the TE with a LB.

15
by chemical burn :: Wed, 07/27/2011 - 3:00pm

Everybody's right, it won't work, getting rid of Mikell doesn't make it make more sense. I'm just trying to figure out how to reconcile what the coaches are saying with the personnel they have. Even Washburn is making so much noise about lining up the DE's wide, switching to attacking DT's and getting Bunkley (Bunkley!) Sapp/Haynesworth-esque sack numbers... None of it makes sense. If I didn't appreciate the stability of having an all-time great defensive coach like Jim Johnson before, I certainly do now...

12
by Pass to Set Up ... :: Wed, 07/27/2011 - 1:24pm

They're not considering a Tampa-2, they're considering a Cover-2.

13
by chemical burn :: Wed, 07/27/2011 - 2:54pm

What, just running every play out of base defense shell? Like any team, they already run many, many plays in Cover-2.

14
by Arkaein :: Wed, 07/27/2011 - 2:57pm

A straight-up Cover 2 puts more pressure on the safeties since a LB isn't expected to drop to the deep middle. This might be a better fit for Philly's LBs, but sounds like a worse fit for inexperienced safeties.

16
by chemical burn :: Wed, 07/27/2011 - 3:03pm

Well, they are more coverage oriented safeties. But it is really meaningful to say they're going to play Cover-2? I'm sincerely asking - I've just gotten so used to Jim Johnson's playbook that I can't believe teams run a scheme so vanilla with minor variation. Is this actually happening (with good defenses) at an NFL level?

17
by Arkaein :: Wed, 07/27/2011 - 3:42pm

It sort of makes sense for teams like the Colts, who pay most of the big bucks to the offense and build defenses out of fairly inexpensive and easily replaceable players, and really rely on the offense to carry the team. But yeah, it would be a total 180 degree turn for the Eagles.

18
by chemical burn :: Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:58pm

Well, Asante Samuel aside, the Eagles' defense is not exactly loaded with expensive players. It's certainly not loaded with stars.

10
by Karl Cuba :: Wed, 07/27/2011 - 6:51am

I'd rather have Atogwe for his money that Mikell for this deal. Better player, less cash.