What does the acquisition of Gallery do for the rest of the plan?

[Art]

First, I'll say I find it extremely unlikely we are actually going to make a major move for Gallery on terms that we would find all that pleasurable. Washington does have the somewhat unique tendency to fall in love with a player and do everything in its power to make a deal happen, even if that deal, on its face, doesn't look all that good.

But, we've had that ability for a long time. This is why we so rarely had first-round picks under Beathard. Beathard thought a second-rounder in this draft was worth a first in the next one. I could see Gallery here under a massive trade that includes picks next year just because when we fall in love, we fall in love hard.

That's not always a bad thing if the love affair leads to cornerstone type players. This is not to say we know that Gallery is a guy we covet. It's also not to say that even should he be, that we'll be so dumb as to make a terrible trade just to acquire him that creates weakness in future drafts and doesn't do anything in the present other than swap out one left tackle for another.

Remember, we fell in deep love with Stallworth and Harrington a couple of years ago and didn't make it happen because we wouldn't go overboard to make it happen.

Gallery is a guy I can't really see here. But, if things come together, and he is acquired for the proper value of just Samuels and low round picks, leaving us the No. 5 pick, then it changes everything for what we've been discussing.

Making that trade is a message trade.

Gibbs is looking for Redskins. Guys who care about the Redskins. Cornerstones to build around. Samuels, by simply not being overly interested in restructuring at the moment, becomes a guy you may not think wants to be that. You only make this trade to essentially let guys know if they don't do what they can for the team, we'll take it as a sign they want to play elsewhere, and we'll help them out in that desire.

Acquiring Gallery then would be your "cornerstone" move. And the moment you do that -- though, again, I don't think it'll happen -- you have to pair that player up with the best defensive end prospect you can land. No longer is Winslow or Taylor really the best option.

Once you get the young left tackle you intend to mold into your next Jacoby or Lachey, you go out and get a young defensive end who you put against that guy every day in practice. You improve both guys dramatically.

I'd still mildly move down to do this, but even if you don't, the No. 5 pick changes from best player available to need, knowing the best way to make BOTH your rookie left tackle and your rookie end better is to put them against each other every day.

To me, this is the only reasonable course to take if you acquire Gallery at the right price that allows such a wider thought process.

[Canadian Hog]

My question is this:

Does the supposed "love" that the Redskins have for Gallery stem more from the Samuels contract situation, or is he just THAT much better than Chris? That's where my problem is in this whole situation, provided the the Skins' interest in Gallery is indeed true. But then again, I understand that money talks, and this would be as much of a "business move" as it is a "football move."

I remember that during the introductory press conference for the new staff, Joe Bugel had stated in an interview that he believed that Chris Samuels has the potential to not only be one of the best players at his position, but one of the best players in the entire league. So clearly, nobody is doubting his talent in my mind.

As for drafting the top defensive end to go up against Gallery, it should be our primary objective regardless of whether Gallery is here or not. Besides, if we retain Samuels, I think that our rookie end would have a pretty challenge going up against a two-time Pro Bowler every other day. Wouldn't that work towards improving both guys dramatically as well? Let's face it, who has Samuels had to block against in practice over the years that is significantly better than let's say a Will Smith or Kenechi Udeze?

[Art]

Hog,

I think you ask a pretty good question. Samuels is a fine player with rare ability. But, he's a level below the sort of prospect Pace, Ogden and now Gallery are for a simple reason. Those guys have natural size and share Samuels atheticism. Samuels has a difficult time with keeping weight on and therefore loses his athleticism when he carries extra weight early in the year.

I think Gallery is a better prospect for the NFL than Samuels was and you could project him to be a better player in time, but, Samuels is a pretty fine player that you KNOW about, already. The love, therefore of Gallery if it exists, is probably a bit of a spiteful, "Fine, if you don't want to help us, we don't need you," mentality that Gibbs is fostering to let every player know that no one is safe.

While I recognize the need for a defensive lineman, I don't think the same rationale applies to drafting one to go up against Samuels as it does to draft one to go up against Gallery. You're correct to say that a young end would have similar improvement going up against Samuels.

The difference is if you have Gallery and a rookie end, you have rookies competing against each other that will be done at a far higher level than Samuels might compete against a rookie. There's a certain degree of wanting to prove you're the better rookie. Better player. You improve Gallery each time the rookie defensive lineman beats him by telling Gallery that this is a rookie. What's he going to do against a vet. You tell the rookie defensive end every time Gallery stones him that Gallery hasn't played in the league and he's killing you. You can't cut it here.

You tear them down, then build them back up, in tandem. I just don't think the same ability exists with Samuels because he's a vet. I do think any lineman you'd draft would improve going up against Samuels. I just think the ability to feed competition and growth and have an automatic driving force for both the tackle and end would be a benefit should Gallery be more than fiction.

As it stands, I actually would rather have a defensive tackle than an end with the roster as it is now as I think we're scary thin at tackle if Noble isn't perfect. Of course, as it stands now at the No. 5 pick, I prefer Winslow . So, I'm all over the board depending on what factors I deem important at any given time .

[Chrisbob74]

Great post Art, I agree with a lot of what your saying.

To me, it seems the 'Skins have looked at Gallery and although they are aware they have a quality LT in Samuels the closer they have looked, the more advantages they can see to bringing Gallery in here.

- They can trade Samuels to do it (at least, that's what they appear to be thinking).

- It reduces cap impact in the next couple of years (although Gallery won't be cheap, he'll be more cap friendly than Samuels at this time).

- They believe Gallery is the best prospect in the draft, he grades a prefect nine and they feel in the long term, it gets rid of a future cap problem (Samuels) and brings in a guy who in the long run, they believe will be better.

[aREDSKIN]

IMO this is clearly a business side driven issue coupled with the poor performance by Samuels last year & the year before. Given his outrageous contract (FO fault) and the percieved value of Gallery vs the performance of Samuels, his current non-compliant behavoir and his extorting agent, in total this is the motivation.

Throw in a 50 million dollar contract to our "star" RB and not having a Redskin for life at a key position seems a bit unwise.

If we could somehow entice the Browns @7 to trade for Samuels I'd do it in a heart beat. Then the question becomes how to get to the 2 position without breaking the bank with Weird AL.

[Dr. D]

The Samuels question has sort of come out of the blue. Yet, he is creating this situation. like Samules or not he is definitely not worth 8-9million of cap space. Now I do not dis-agree with the moves made by the team with respect to replaceing what was supposed to be a "cornerstone" player with another. WWE obviously have some players we will gladly part with (trotter etc) that would make this a win-win scenario.

The "why?" in this case is most interesting because why would a young tackle such as Samuels leave when in comes Gibbs and Buges. It makes no sense from my perspective. There is obviously more here than meets the eye. I get the feeling Samuels may be damaged good unable to ever realize the sterling potential he arrived here with.

essentially, swapping Gallery for Samuels helps us both in the long and short run. The rest of the draft and such changes liittle if at all. We still need D-Line and Safety and maybe a bomber tight end.

[Art]

The "cornerstone" player factor I think weighs heavily here. The Redskins have loaded up on a lot of good quality free agents who give us a young base to work with. Obviously we are going to have to settle into a situation where we focus more on the draft than we have the last couple of years to replenish some of the lesser free agents we've signed.

The team knows a cap number Samuels can be retained at. Likely around $5 to $6 million a year. If the team can't get him down to that and stretch him out another few years you create a situation of uncertainty. We won't be planning on replacing the left tackle here for the rest of the Gibbs run. So, if Samuels can't be accounted for and budgeted within that time frame, Gallery presents an immediate guy who can and this, to me, is more the driving force.

That Gallery also may be a better player in a couple of years is simply a possible and hoped for bonus. The fact that the last 15 highly touted and taken tackles have panned out as good starters simply lessens the downside risk of a typical draft pick. Gibbs is going to want to create a stable of Redskins he can count on. The number Samuels carries times his play here out after the 2005 year. The team can't want to have that uncertainty heading into that season.

[SlobberKnockinFootball]

Art, you bring up some very interesting points concerning this deal. If this deal does go down though and we get Gallery at number 2, then we can all rest assure that Taylor is going to be sporting B&G. Just for the simple fact that nobody can complain because we scooped up one of the best prospects on the offensive side of the ball and then picked up another "playmaker" on the defensive side of the balll as well. Even thought I didn't see LT as on of our weaknesses. But you can't go wrong with someone like Gallery IMO.

Also, who's to say that Bugel just didn't fall in love with this guy through scouting and at the combine? You know how it is when you fall in love with someone's ability you start thinking.... well, how can we acquire this guy and the wheels start spinning and since Samuels has had a hard stance against restructuring again he's made the easy target to be used in a trade for Gallery.

I just think personally Bugel told Gibbs this guy is a must have and Gibbs listened. And that's why they went on their personal date with Gallery at the combine so the entire staff can see what Bugel saw. So they all can give their word on let's go after this guy if we can. This is just my opinion of why I think we hearing all this talk about Gallery at the moment.

Just like someone mentioned, if we really want someone we will do anything to acquire that person. That's one of our best talents in our FO.

[scottb]

If the situation is such that the FO legitimately believes Samuals needs to be replaced, then I can see the logic behind Gallary...provided Gallery is indeed a rare LT rookie that only comes every three or four years. For those players that are exceptional prospects that don't come in every draft, then it is ok to go for them because the price is tied to the draft slot rather than their uniqueness.

The same logic should be applied to finding the best D lineman if we trade down. Is the guy being sought really a better prospect that his slot indicates for an average draft? Is next years draft good for the DL? Those questions need to be answered.

[semiskin]

Did anyone catch what they said on Sportscenter last night regarding the Redskins or this situation?

[TC4]

If we could somehow, someway manage to trade Samuels and say our 1st round pick in the 2005 NFL Draft to the Raiders to draft Gallery and still hold onto this year's 5th overall pick, that would be a sweet move by the FO. That way, we could get both Gallery and still maybe either take someone like Sean Taylor, or trade back down to get a starting DE and an extra pick or two.

That all being said, all that would seem to be more or less a pipe dream, as I don't see us moving up to get Gallery unless we give up both Samuels AND the #5

[semiskin]

Anyone know if and when Gallery is scheduled to come in for a workout?

[bulldog]

The Redskins made a deal with the devil so to speak in 2000 when they signed both Arrington and Samuels to the most bare bones cap numbers for 2000 and 2001 in order to fit in all of the veteran free agents the team signed.

That's why the rookie deals for both players blew up a couple of years before you see most rookie contracts for top players become unmanageable.

We are dealing now with that problem in the case of both Arrington and Samuels.

I think it is a bit far off to see all of the circumstances lining up so we can trade to select Gallery and then jettison Samuels for value and end up sitting pretty on top of a hill

But if it works out sign me up.

Samuels to me is a lot like Champ Bailey. He is a talented player who is quiet and doesn't necessarily provide visible leadership, preferring to keep his own counsel and look out for himself.

As with Champ, I don't get the idea that Samuels is necessarily enamored with being in Washington. For him this is a job and the city where he is being asked to perform.

Do I think he could be just as happy earning his money in another city? Definitely.

I agree that Gibbs is trying to create an environment where players are here because they want to be strong 'Redskins' as well as get paid.

As with Bailey, it may be too late to turn around some guys like Samuels that have dealt with the annual changing of the guard around Redskins Park and who are by habit now solely looking out for themselves.

But that is the legacy you have to overcome in re-establishing a team first mentality.

Often the only way to do that effectively is to bring in new players.

A Gallery for Samuels trade would not break my heart

[SlobberKnockinFootball]

Semi, I believe he already came to Redskin Park already.

[thinker]

I think we have to consider other scenarios in addition to this one for moving Samuels. As I believe Inmate explained, the possibility might be to get get oakland's other LT if they draft Gallery - then we trade Samuels to cleveland. The other issue might be that Winey or Kenyatta might fill the bill and we just trade Samuels as the only transaction. I do question whether we could sign a #5 a #7 and take the cap hits for Trotter and Samuels this year. I doubt we have enough money to do that and if would be even more impossible to sign Gallery at #2 and whoever at #5. There just isn't enough room in the cap.

[Arsenic]

They should offer Samuels a top heavy contract. Giving him the money he is owed this year + a heavier bonus, but with a decrease in the oncoming years to help our salary cap.

We have to many wholes on Defense to start opening other ones, especially, on the Oline.

[bulldog]

If the Redskins trade up to #2, my assumption is they will then package the #5 pick to get TWO additional selections later on to grab defensive linemen the club also desperately needs IMO.

Winslow or Taylor play luxury positions, ie it's fine to take TEs and safeties #1 when you are the defending Super Bowl champs, less compelling when you have more serious holes to fill.

[semiskin]

Originally posted by SlobberKnockinFootball

Semi, I believe he already came to Redskin Park already.

Thanks alot. He must have impressed the hell out of Gibbs and Bugel, if there is an validity to this rumor of course.

[method man]

One scenario we have to consider is the browns failing to trade up to get gallery. Then I believe we could ripoff the browns for samuels. I believe they would be, by no means, adamant about giving up a 1st and 2nd/3rd for samuels.

Winey and Jones have both been starters in the past so one of them could fill in at left tackle for a season or two. the importance of the left tackle position has been reduced with our left-handed QB in Brunell. now jansen becomes our most important olineman. if we still have doubts about winey and jones, then we can take shawn andrews after trading down from the #7 spot to the mid-first. along the way we can acquire a second-rounder. not too long ago, andrews was considered by some of you to be a better pass blocker than gallery. this guy's weight problem is bringing down his stock but i believe gibbs can instill some work ethic into this guy and andrews could become a real steal.