If the Skins could only keep one in 2005, who would it be: Gardner or Samuels?

[Sonny Joe Hog]

Originally posted by jtyler42

I would keep Samuels, he is still a good LT but not an upper echelon LT and doesnt deserve upper echelon money, so he needs to restructure his contract....

50/50 needs to go and he has some trade value for a team looking for a #2 WR.....WE should be able to get a 2nd or 3rd round pick for him...Plus we have his replacement on the roster all ready.......DMac!

A good LT will get big money in Free Agency, so I don't think Samuels needs to restructure if he doesn't want to do so. He's played hurt a lot, and he is currently playing hurt, so that has affected his performance (not to mention that, as a Redskin, he's played in the offense-du-jour due to all of the changes around here). He would be one of the most difficult players on the team to replace and it would be a disaster to let him get away.

As for Gardner, 50-50 says it all. Don't forget to write, Rod!

:point2sky

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Samuels.

This should be unanimous.

We need OL talent. We have 4 other quality WRs.

[Sonny Joe Hog]

Originally posted by TD_washingtonredskins

Samuels.

This should be unanimous.

We need OL talent. We have 4 other quality WRs.

Way to net it out! Good post!

:notworthy

[Shotgunner]

Another year under Buges and Samuels should return to pro bowl form. Our line is the top priority and having two solid bookends is where you start.:point2sky

[skins0128]

Samuels, but the man needs to restructure his current deal to lower that enormous cap hit he has next year.

[LaVarGreen2856]

Assuming he redoes his contract, Samuels.

[Drex]

If he restructures the contract, Samuels. If he doesn't, then my answer is neither.

[Posse81]

Originally posted by Drex

If he restructures the contract, Samuels. If he doesn't, then my answer is neither.

This is exactly what I think. Gardner has been a HUGE dissapointment this year.

[jflagg215]

Samuels, even with his mistakes I value a lineman over a second receiver anyday especially with our depth.

[RedskinsNation]

You cant teach someone to actually catch the ball, hands of stone is just something that cant be corrected.

If Samuels renegotiated his deal then I'd take him, but with his contract now....no way.

[Walking Deadman]

Samuels,

We have a great core of WRs and I would like to see Thrash, Mccants and Jacobs get more time.

Plus Samuels has had a few good games this year.

[Darth Tater]

Samuels contract was designed from the get-go to force the Redskins to fish or cut-bait in 2005 instead of 2006.

[SonnyRules]

Easy - Samuels

[[[ghost]]]

i'd rather have samuels with a healthy line, especcially when we might get a better center, one who blocks FORWARD on a run play

[dg28daman]

Are you guys crazy?!?!?! Samuels is playing great this year. Besides the two mistakes on Sunday, has he done anything wrong the entire year? Gardner on the other hand is the second most overrated wide reciever in the league besides Travis Taylor. We have tons of Wrs, but do you remember out O-Lines in between the hogs and Samuels. Those were much worse than this.

[Novato]

Samuels without a doubt, WR are dime a dozen and easier to replace, in fact we have a couple WR that can replace 50/50, Jacobs and McCants.

[NYSkins1]

I've changed my mind, but I unfortunately can't change my vote. I sort of talked myself into keeping Samuels instead of Gardner during my post, but it was too late to change my vote. In the end, we have to look at depth. Samuels is costing us more than he's worth, but we don't have any depth in the O-Line. We do, however, have an insanely deep receiving corps.

[NVskinsfan]

Originally posted by JonBlaze

neither

Agreed

[bricucci]

My favriot thread is Gardner is a great wr? He Sucks!!!!! He can't seperate and is a better qb than wr. I say let them both go and use the money for a better player. 50 50 is a good nick name for both. One catches the ball 50 percent of the time and the other shows up to block 50 percent of the time.

[Chrisbob74]

Keep Samuels, but he MUST renegotiate. Has he already renegotiated once already?

He has reworked twice before!

For me, it's both, Samuels can void his final year of his contract, the cap hit for him next year is $9.643m at this stage but if he informs the team he intends to vois the final year then his cap hit jumps to $11.861m.

Samuels is a good tackle, but he is no Ogden and he could be due a cap hit of nearly $3M more than Ogden in 2005!

Now if we trade or release Samuels in 2005 (before his workout bonus is due and after he voids his 2006 year) we would take a 2005 dead cap hit of $4.426m - which means we would save over $7.4m against the 2005 cap.

This means we can get rid of Brunell as well with those savings!

Yes, it leaves another hole to fill and Samuels is a good player who has never had a settled partner who plays well at LG next to him but we risk losing him for nothing on 2006 if we don't address his cap problem now and if he reworks, he is going to want big, big money and we have only 5 years of CBA agreement to spread out his current cap hit and any new maney added in a new deal!

Also, I think Gardener gets traded, he is frustratingly inconsistent and we can get something for him now, probably only a 3rd rounder maximum due to it being a good year for FA receivers.

[Disco Dave]

I would trade both of them. I have lost all faith in Samuels. His head is NOT in the game. Gardner is doing just good enough to be here next year, like he has done in the past years. You know how it is, If we get rid of them, they will have a great year. Then we will have to hear in the media how we are stupid for letting them go.

[matty dread]

Finding a quality LT is a lot harder than finding a good WR.

I'd keep Samuels.