Chris Samuels and Randy Thomas

[LaRonDontLikeUgly]

At this point, our current options are so bad that you have to give these guys a chance to come in and do their thing.

Of course we need to draft and pick up free agents, but we could bump most of our '09 OL starters to the practice squad and teams wouldn't even sniff at them.

As we've learned the past few seasons, OL depth is key and these guys (despite being old and coming off injuries) are a hell of a lot better than Heyer and both Williams'.

Rabach is the biggest problem to me (mainly bc of the importance of his position) and I hope we can find a center who doesn't get routinely blown up and punched in the mouth on every play.

[Destructis]

Please don't forget that both of them can help teach younger guys. A good mix of vets and rookies is never bad. Sometimes, a players best attribute isn't on the field.

[Pick6]

They both need to retire. Chris should be an assistant Oline coach. He has been to enought pro-bowls to know a thing or two.

[MrJL]

If Thomas was cut and signed to a reduced salary orjust took a pay cut I would have no problem having him as a backup guard.

The Redskins should do everything in their power to convince Samuels to retire. It's not like coming back next year will get him the elusive ring or anything.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

LOL...no offense, but you sound like Vinny. I don't think his mentality will be different because he's played with it his whole career.

A couple of other thoughts:

- If next year is uncapped, don't count on a salary cap coming back. Restructuring and 2011 cap shouldn't even be considerations.

- Like I said, this isn't a discussion about what they should do. This discussion is whether we cut them.

From my perspective, I would let them both return, but continue with my free agency and draft strategy. Both of these guys are more than athletic enough to play in the scheme and are more valuable than the 9th or 10th offensive lineman on the depth chart. In open competition, I'm pretty sure they would still win starting job. As far as there injuries go, I have no concern about re-aggravating them.

The real issue is whether you want them playing or a prospect playing. There's pros and cons to both situations.

lol, youre taking what i said the wrong way. vinny said the injury was a mental thing, im saying he needs to think long and hard if he wants to risk paralysis at age 33 to play LT for the washington redskins.

if id said "sacks and stuff" youd be on to something!

[gorebd82]

If Thomas was cut and signed to a reduced salary orjust took a pay cut I would have no problem having him as a backup guard.

The Redskins should do everything in their power to convince Samuels to retire. It's not like coming back next year will get him the elusive ring or anything.

Are you all even reading the what I said in the OP? The reduced salary discussion is moot because there's no salary cap. We alternate with the Cowgirls as the most valuable franchise. If Samuels elects to not retire, its because the doctors said he's OK. So why would we force him to retire?

Should we cut them?

[gorebd82]

lol, youre taking what i said the wrong way. vinny said the injury was a mental thing, im saying he needs to think long and hard if he wants to risk paralysis at age 33 to play LT for the washington redskins.

if id said "sacks and stuff" youd be on to something!

LOL. I gotcha. Just messing with you a little. If he comes back, it will only be with the doctor's blessing. So I wouldn't worry too much about his mentality or re-injury.

The real question is whether the organization wants a 33 year old Chris Samuels.

[C26 Run]

Bring them both back to compete for the starting spots. They shouldn't be given the starting posts considering their injury plagued seasons.

:helmet:

[Destructis]

The Redskins should do everything in their power to convince Samuels to retire. It's not like coming back next year will get him the elusive ring or anything.

I trust Samuels to make a good informed choice on what to do. He is intelligent enough to listen to what the medical people tell him. It should be totally up to him. I think he has earned that.

[pjfootballer]

Since the one option is not there: Hope Samuels retires and cut Thomas, I picked cut them both. We need to get younger. Take the cap hit in an uncapped year and 2011 they are no longer a liability.

[Rufus T Firefly]

- If next year is uncapped, don't count on a salary cap coming back. Restructuring and 2011 cap shouldn't even be considerations.

People keep saying stuff like this (based, I guess, on the hollow bargaining position threat the NFLPA has been using of a cap never coming back), but it's silly, at best, to think there won't be a cap in 2011.

The uncapped year is part of the CBA (designed to get both sides to negotiate a deal before it happened). There is no CBA for 2011. If there is no new CBA by then, there won't be a season at all. So an uncapped future is one where both sides agree to go forward without a cap.

Now, think about what that means:

-The players are obviously already realizing how bad an uncapped year is for them. 4-5 year players can't become UFAs, teams can tag 2 players, there is no salary floor. All of which is going to take money out of their poclets. Would they agree to continue with that kind of system? No way. -Would the owners even agree to it, considering the competitive balance problems it would represent?

-Would the smaller market teams agree to continue with that system, which takes revnue sharing dollars away from them?

-Now, would the owners agree to an uncapped future where 4 year players are UFAs? Or where there is no cap, but there is a floor?

So, what are we assuming is even plausible here?

1) The league is continuing without a CBA, which means no revenue sharing and no draft.

2) The players are agreeing to the uncapped year scenario of 2010 with all it's restrictions and pitfalls for them.

3) The owners have agreed to an uncapped system, but while allowing the old FA rules to apply, whcih means a league where Snyder and Jones can buy every FA they want without any rules to stop them.

4) Some kind of mash-up of the above possibilities.

I find it inconceivable any of the above happens. The league has been mega-profitable for all sides under the CBAs of the past two decades. The issues (Rookie cap, giving the owners more revnue to finance stadiums) that are keeping an agreement from happening can be adressed, and there is no way the owners are going to sign a deal that creates a new, haves and have nots league, nor will the players agree to a deal which means Free Agency only applies to the older players not worthy of a Tag.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

LOL. I gotcha. Just messing with you a little. If he comes back, it will only be with the doctor's blessing. So I wouldn't worry too much about his mentality or re-injury.

The real question is whether the organization wants a 33 year old Chris Samuels.

as a backup maybe but i wonder if thats a respect thing to ask him to take a back seat. i just dont think we can count on him anymore. his injuries are piling up and a life threatening injury is just more fuel to the fire.

[75004]

We would be in the same boat at this time next year. They will problably be healthy for one or two games and then we will suck all over again. If I were to choose one I would choose Samuels as a back up. Remember, Randy Thomas had the same kind of injury the year before.

[MumboSauce]

We need younger talent to develop or possibly start if good enough, if Samuels decides to play and is cleared to do so he is a starter, Randy Thomas I'd like more in a role of rotation and depth.

[TSO]

Only for depth.

[gorebd82]

I find it inconceivable any of the above happens. The league has been mega-profitable for all sides under the CBAs of the past two decades. The issues (Rookie cap, giving the owners more revnue to finance stadiums) that are keeping an agreement from happening can be adressed, and there is no way the owners are going to sign a deal that creates a new, haves and have nots league, nor will the players agree to a deal which means Free Agency only applies to the older players not worthy of a Tag.

I think that your thinking a little too deeply about a lot of what ifs, etc. First let me say that my statement about the cap not returning is only the news that has been fed to me by guys like Mort and Clayton. They have much more insight as to what's going on that you or I do.

As for players being cool with all of the restrictions, etc., those restrictions are only for 2010. Obviously, for football to continue, they would have to develop a new CBA for 2011 and beyond. Most of those quirky rules will be one time and a new set of rules will be developed. The draft will return and all those good things. But that doesn't mean that the salary cap will come back.

Owners will not care about the competitive balance and all that stuff because those are secondary to their bottom line. The small market teams will want a lack of cap because there is no floor. That means they can cut salaries to better manage the costs of running the franchise. The whole profit sharing thing isn't so rosy for them. That was a way for them to get some sort of profit, but it doesn't just cover everything. It just augments their revenue to pay the bills. Player salaries are the largest expenses of those small market teams and no payroll minimum will make them more profitable in the long run. They will look at baseball and teams like the Marlins who don't buy superstars. The difference though is that they won't struggle like baseball franchises because fans will always support the NFL. As for the big guys, the don't have to profit share and can buy their favorite players.

If there's no cap in 2010, the players may want it back for the security. But the owners will never accept it again because it restricts how they can allocate their money to run the franchise.

And if the players don't like it, the owners are better prepared for a lockout. The players won't last that long if they're out of work. Plus there's always replacements, scabs and young draft picks that will go around the union.

[MrJL]

Are you all even reading the what I said in the OP? The reduced salary discussion is moot because there's no salary cap. We alternate with the Cowgirls as the most valuable franchise. If Samuels elects to not retire, its because the doctors said he's OK. So why would we force him to retire?

Should we cut them?

It depends on if they expect to be starters. It's wrong to assume there will be no salary cap in 2011, because the owners don't seem likely to agree to a CBA without one which means lockout.

O think their contracts extend beyond 2010. So in 2010 we either need to cut them to avoid their 2011 cost or we need to adjust their contracts so 2010 would be an obscene amount of money and 2011 a more reasonable one. That's why I'm talking money matters.

[Redskinzfan30]

Bring back Samuels as a starter only if he can come back. His health should be first.

Bring back Thomas at a reduced salary and as depth or maybe a starter if you have someone who can step up if he goes down.

[Miamification]

I don't know a lot about offensive line play and I'm not going to pretend like I do, but if my memory serves me correctly, reports on Samuels were that he risked full paralysis or even death by playing again (He has a spinal condition), so I am basing my decision (Bring only Randy back) based purely on that. Chris is an all time Redskins great, but he can't risk his life or quality of life over a game. I love him, I really do, but for his own good, he needs to hang up the pads. Maybe he could even stay with our organization as some sort of consultant? I'd love that...

[armada58]

It would be nice to make this decision after the draft. See what we look like in May, and then decide if we need to bring them back or not. Not sure we can wait that long to make a decision, though.

[Rufus T Firefly]

I think that your thinking a little too deeply about a lot of what ifs, etc. First let me say that my statement about the cap not returning is only the news that has been fed to me by guys like Mort and Clayton. They have much more insight as to what's going on that you or I do.

As for players being cool with all of the restrictions, etc., those restrictions are only for 2010. Obviously, for football to continue, they would have to develop a new CBA for 2011 and beyond. Most of those quirky rules will be one time and a new set of rules will be developed. The draft will return and all those good things. But that doesn't mean that the salary cap will come back.

Owners will not care about the competitive balance and all that stuff because those are secondary to their bottom line. The small market teams will want a lack of cap because there is no floor. That means they can cut salaries to better manage the costs of running the franchise. The whole profit sharing thing isn't so rosy for them. That was a way for them to get some sort of profit, but it doesn't just cover everything. It just augments their revenue to pay the bills. Player salaries are the largest expenses of those small market teams and no payroll minimum will make them more profitable in the long run. They will look at baseball and teams like the Marlins who don't buy superstars. The difference though is that they won't struggle like baseball franchises because fans will always support the NFL. As for the big guys, the don't have to profit share and can buy their favorite players.

If there's no cap in 2010, the players may want it back for the security. But the owners will never accept it again because it restricts how they can allocate their money to run the franchise.

And if the players don't like it, the owners are better prepared for a lockout. The players won't last that long if they're out of work. Plus there's always replacements, scabs and young draft picks that will go around the union.

I've never hear Mort or Clayton even suggest that an uncapped future is in the cards for the NFL. Talking about an uncapped 2010 or a 2011 lockout, sure. But I haven't heard either of them talk about how there won't be a cap ever again. Maybe you've heard something I haven't.

I'm not "over thinking" anything, I'm just thinking.

Competitve balance is what the NFL has been all about. It's what has made the league what it is today and it's what the owners have fought for for decdes. Now, you're suggesting they are going to blow it up so the small market teams can pay minimal salaries and pocket the extra $$? That's crazy. That's a recipe for disaster in the NFL and the owners know it. And you're assuming that to do this, they are going to force it down the players throats, and go with a lockout (and all the lost money that comes with it) so that they can get a wild-west, free spending, no competitive balance league?

Again, to even think there will be no cap in 2011 means there has to be some kind of realistic scenario where that happens, and the above certainly doesn't qualify.

And you're talking about how the Redskins should should just assume the cap will be gone, and make their plans accordingly (ie. giving away 10-15 mil in 2011 cap space for one more year of Samuels and Thomas). An uncapped 2011 is an ultra-longshot, and to plan on it happening means treating it as a virtual certainty. That's nuts.

[Braxford]

Until the Skins can bring in better players to take their place. I say keep them. IF they can stay healthy they help out on the offensive line a lot. I would hate for them to be released and then backups do not step up or the Skins do not pick up immediate starters through the draft and/or FA. If Samuels comes back I truly hope his health is not even a bit "iffy" it would be horrible for him to be paralyzed or worse knowing it could have been prevented.

[gorebd82]

I've never hear Mort or Clayton even suggest that an uncapped future is in the cards for the NFL. Talking about an uncapped 2010 or a 2011 lockout, sure. But I haven't heard either of them talk about how there won't be a cap ever again. Maybe you've heard something I haven't.

I'm not "over thinking" anything, I'm just thinking.

Competitve balance is what the NFL has been all about. It's what has made the league what it is today and it's what the owners have fought for for decdes. Now, you're suggesting they are going to blow it up so the small market teams can pay minimal salaries and pocket the extra $$? That's crazy. That's a recipe for disaster in the NFL and the owners know it. And you're assuming that to do this, they are going to force it down the players throats, and go with a lockout (and all the lost money that comes with it) so that they can get a wild-west, free spending, no competitive balance league?

Again, to even think there will be no cap in 2011 means there has to be some kind of realistic scenario where that happens, and the above certainly doesn't qualify.

And you're talking about how the Redskins should should just assume the cap will be gone, and make their plans accordingly (ie. giving away 10-15 mil in 2011 cap space for one more year of Samuels and Thomas). An uncapped 2011 is an ultra-longshot, and to plan on it happening means treating it as a virtual certainty. That's nuts.

All we can do is speculate. It will be interesting to see how it works out. I wish I had read the no cap in the future thing in an article, but its something that I've seen said on ESPN so unfortunately I don't have a reference. Everything I've ever heard is that the owners are more in favor of an uncapped league than the NFLPA.

I do think though, that one thing that will hinder a cap after an uncapped 2010, is how do you adjust the new cap for the deals signed in 2010 free agency? If small market teams slash salary and big boys have the payroll balloon, how can you possibly balance that back out in 2011? Why would small market teams that see their cap minimum drop from $90 million to zero be happy about a cap returning that will probably be increased to account for the big deals of 2010? Just a couple of items to think about regarding the cap returning.

But its all speculation so that's why we can't take it into account regarding this discussion.

[jflow78]

I hope Chris retires, BUT, if he wants to play, I'd love to have him here as a RT. He hasn't been his old self the last few years, probably due to his condition.

With Thomas, I wouldn't mind having him here as a backup, but I don't want him here as a starter. He can't stay healthy when playing full-time, and he isn't as good as he used to be.

Honestly, I'd rather have young guys come in and take positions from both of them, it's going to be harder to do with Chris, if he returns, than it will for Thomas.

[Blackest Eyes]

If these guys want to return that is great. But I hope they know they will be in competition with younger guys (hopefully that are drafted in April). I would feel much more comfortable if they were backups as opposed to starters for one more season.