Pocono Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Samuels' cap number is 9.6M in 05 but that does not mean they will pay him that amount in 05. His salary is 6M and he also will receive a 600K roster bonus. The rest of his cap number comes from his rookie signing bonus and two simple restructures that were done in past years to give Snyder the cap space to add FA's in 02 and 03. Since Samuels can and will void his contract for 06 he can not do a simple restructure for 05 so he would have to take a pay cut to lower his cap hit or agree to an extension which would lower his cap hit. He's not going to take a cut because he can do far better than a 6.6M signing bonus on the open market and after seeing what happened to LaVar after agreeing to an extension to help the Skins with the cap that is unlikely also. It probably won't help things that his agent believes another client of his was screwed out of a chance to trigger playing time incentives when the Skins brought in Brunell to play in front of Ramsey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA56Dawg Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Originally posted by Neophyte Time was less a factor in that pass than Ramsey having no room in front of him to step into that throw. It was all arm which is why it fell short and was picked off. And while I will be the first to say that a player can contribute in ways that don't show on the stat sheet, Von Olhoffen had a goose egg against the Skins on Sunday. No tackles, no assists and no sacks. Not saying Samuels could not have played a better game but those numbers indicate he did not play a bad game. what are you talking about? he had a goose egg, so what? the point is that he PRESSURED Ramsey to throw the pick... Samules does not deserve to be paid what he is being paid after back-to-back bad performances... allowing a sack to D. Burgess and then having slow ass Olhoffen pressuring Ramsey to throw a pick... oh and guess what, if Ramsey doesn't duck to avoid the sack then Von Olhoffen would have had a sack.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskinjoe Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Originally posted by Mufumonk It has more to do with Dockery being a liability than anything to do with Samuels abilities. Amen to that. He needs a quality gaurd beside him and a TE to hold his assignments. Ever try to do a job it takes 6 to seven people to do and 5 or 6 of them are not qualified? There you go. Although I do believe that his talents at the pro level are better suited to the gaurd position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Originally posted by LA56Dawg oh and guess what, if Ramsey doesn't duck to avoid the sack then Von Olhoffen would have had a sack.... Absolutely true. The fact that Ramsey didn't get sacked by Samuels' man on that play is attributable to Ramsey, not Samuels. Although, of course, it should take more evidence than one play to show that Samuels is bad, I would think. Still, Samuels was clearly destroyed on that play. Everyone should be able to admit to that if they watch Zeb's video. http://extremeskins.com/CrazyZeb/Week12atPIT04_RamseyINT.mpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The X-Factor Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Originally posted by Redskinjoe Amen to that. He needs a quality gaurd beside him and a TE to hold his assignments. Ever try to do a job it takes 6 to seven people to do and 5 or 6 of them are not qualified? There you go. Although I do believe that his talents at the pro level are better suited to the gaurd position. An "elite" LT should be able to handle his assignments without anyone else's help. In fact he should be be able to raise the level of play of Dockery if he truly was one of the leagues best at that position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neophyte Posted December 1, 2004 Author Share Posted December 1, 2004 Ok, you are right, Ramsey saved a sack and Samuels is the guy whose man almost had it. However, that is not what caused the INT. Ray Brown's man caused the INT by taking away Ramsey's room to step into that throw. And hey, everyone gets beat every now and then. Jacoby needed help sometimes. So did Jim Lachey. Chris Samuels will need it every now and then too. And on some plays they will get beat. News flash...Barry Sanders got tackled behind the line of scrimage almost every game and often by guys who will never sniff a Hall of Fame ballet. One play does not a case make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spear Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Samuels has been battling an ankle injury for the past month or two. This is the same thing that he blamed for his subpar 2002 season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Originally posted by Neophyte There is alot of talk right now about next year and what the Skins need to do to improve as a team, specifically on offense. The most common suggestions seem linked to trading/cutting both Rod Gardener and Chris Samuels. I can see the reasons behind Gardener as he is very streaky and just as likely to drop a game winner (see his drop in the endzone against the Giants) as he is to catch it. However, I am puzzled by the seeming desire of most here to get rid of Samuels as well. Granted, he has a high salary and granted he has made some mistakes this year (but has reduced those compared to last year). However, he has also been noted by many commentators as largely returning to his "Pro Bowl form" of two or three years ago. Buges speaks very highly of him. He has continued to play pretty darn well while fighting off some minor injuries (notably his ankle the last few weeks). So what is the problem here? I have asked in other threads and been ignored which would seem to indicate that people don't really know why they want to get rid of Samuels, they just do. I don't consider this rational or smart. Even average LT's are hard to come by in the league much less a guy who stonewalled Simeon Rice opening day largely by himself. Is this desire to go with someone else performance based? Is it because of his large cap number next year or maybe his unwillingness to renegotiate last off season? What is it? And if we do move him, who out there can realistically do a better job, either rookie draft pick or FA pickup? Well, a lot of people are still riding on some of last years mistakes, but he has made quite a few this year as well. He's good, but the question is, is he good enough. I, for one, am not so high on trading Samuels, although I used to be...unless he refuses to renegotiate. If he doesn't renegotiate, then I say trade him & GET COMPENSATED especially if he goes to the Pro Bowl again. If he does renegotiate, however, then we SHOULD keep him. He's in the system, he's learning the system, he IS getting better. Last year, Simeon Rice walked all over Samuels. This year, you barely heard Rice's name mentioned. And, Buges LOVES Samuels, which should say somethin' about the guy. So, we'll see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. S Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 im glad someone started a thread like this, or I was bout to. I dont see him doing much wrong, every tackle will have problems overall, especially with the interior now the way it is. I think people do have a problem with his contract, I do too, and I am for dumping him if he doesnt restructure. However, I would like to keep him. Guys like Mark Brunell, he has a high contract, and he really blows (opinion I know, but shared by a good majority). Samuels, he has a high contract, but he really doesn't blow that much. If we cant reduce his contract release him, but if we can, keep him, remember, everyones preaching continuity, so lets try and keep more things togetherl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galentjm Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 In today's NFL it is essential that a team get good bang for their buck in regards to the contracts they give out. Let's face it, each player's contract is an investment, and if you examine the successful teams in the league right now you'll find that they are maximizing their return on these investments. These teams have highly paid players much as the Redskins do, however the difference is that the successful teams are getting appropriate production from these players in relation to their salaries. Simply put, they don't overpay for their players. Samuels is an overpaid player. His production in my opinion defines him as an above average to good player, however he is being paid as though he were an elite player. Logical reasoning would suggest that the team could find equal production at a much lower cost, and could perhaps use the saved money to address other needs. However, I'm also a proponent of continuity. So in a perfect world the Redskins would restructure Samuels' contract so that it would lessen the salary cap hit and allow the O-line to remain intact. However, reality states that Samuels has already restructured his contract twice now and is more than likely unwilling to do so again. Unfortunately, I think the best play in this scenario is to sever ties and look for a replacement elsewhere. Samuels is certainly a talented player but not enough so as to warrant his current salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mania Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Originally posted by Neophyte Ok, you are right, Ramsey saved a sack and Samuels is the guy whose man almost had it. However, that is not what caused the INT. Ray Brown's man caused the INT by taking away Ramsey's room to step into that throw. And hey, everyone gets beat every now and then. Jacoby needed help sometimes. So did Jim Lachey. Chris Samuels will need it every now and then too. And on some plays they will get beat. News flash...Barry Sanders got tackled behind the line of scrimage almost every game and often by guys who will never sniff a Hall of Fame ballet. One play does not a case make. Barry Sanders lost more yards than any top back in the top 10. However, he created alot of yards by just running around and trying to find an opening. He is a very untraditional runner and a great one at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCRoughrider Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Originally posted by RDSKNfaithfull People in here are dreamers. His cap number is high yes but he can re do his deal. Left Tackles do not grow on trees and he is still a very good tackle. EARTH TO SKINS FANS all tackles have problems with speed rushers every single team in the nfl with the exception of maybe 3 teams complain about their left tackle. Flozell Adams was a pro bowl LT he gets beat all the time, Tre Thomas is a very good LT he gets beat weekly etc. There are many tackles who don't have the problems that Samuels does. He's a good tackle, not a great one. I have a theory about salaries. If you slot all the players at a given position by ability, the salaries should fall roughly in the same line. It's not rocket science. By this standard, Chris Samuels is not a $7+ million left tackle. ...and I'm certain that if he leaves the Redskins, no one is going to pay him what he and his agent thinks he's worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mufumonk Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Originally posted by The X-Factor An "elite" LT should be able to handle his assignments without anyone else's help. In fact he should be be able to raise the level of play of Dockery if he truly was one of the leagues best at that position. You don't get it do you? He has to not only handle his own assignments, but help make up for Dockery's shortcomings as well. There's much more to being a LT than locking up Man-to-Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Money Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Ok so what is it? One guy blames Dockery on affecting Samuels? One guy blames the center du jour for Dockery's woes? Conventional wisdom says that replacing Raymer/Friedman with a high-quality Center would fix everything?? Now ask yourself.... Will that really fix it all? Will it??? I am thinking not, but it couldn't hurt to find a Center for the future. I am willing to give Dock another year to figure him out, and we all know that with Thomas and Jansen back will solidify the right side. But what about the coveted LT Chris Samuels? Deosn't a top tier LT play consistent no matter who lines up next to him or next to whos next to him?? I never hear Ogden or Pace have a bad day because of the guy next to them. Chris Samuaels is not taking care of business and that's OK for now. Its when contract negotiations start that I will b!tch about it. He is going to want to be paid like the player the media hyped him to be. Yeah he made the probowl (in another life) but plenty of guys have good years and then vanish down the road. Chris Samuels just needs to face the fact that he is not "ALL THAT". If he does, then we can do something with him, plenty of teams do well with average LT's I for one cannot stand an average or even above average LT acting like a premier LT when contract negotiations start. He signed a big rookie contract and he has played that contract out. I cannot blamne him for not renegotiating his rookie contract - thats business.... However, if he goes out and searches for a name-recognition pay-day, then he will be a scumbag in my eyes. He's a redskin good play or bad play right now. How he handles his business, will determine whether he is a real redskin or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Monk Fan Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsNumberOne Absolutely true. The fact that Ramsey didn't get sacked by Samuels' man on that play is attributable to Ramsey, not Samuels. Although, of course, it should take more evidence than one play to show that Samuels is bad, I would think. Still, Samuels was clearly destroyed on that play. Everyone should be able to admit to that if they watch Zeb's video. http://extremeskins.com/CrazyZeb/Week12atPIT04_RamseyINT.mpg You know, when I watch this play, I see Samuels directing the end inside as if he expected help from the guard. The guard chips on the DT, then passes him on to the center, and finally looks outside to help Samuels... only it's too late by then and the DE is past the guard with Samuels racing to catch him from behind. Was the guard slow in getting off his inital block according to scheme? Did Samuels have it wrong and there wasn't inside help on the play? I'd like to know what the blocking scheme called for before I pass judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCMONEY Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Originally posted by Destino The problem with folks that have a porblem with Samuels, is they are unrealistic. This team has holes on offense, big ones. You can't fix anything if you take huge steps backward by elminating your starting left tackle. This is one of the most expensive positions to fill in free agency, and requires a first round pick to repair through the draft in most cases. In order to get rid of Samuels we would have to not fill one or more of the other holes. I don't see that as a good thing at all. Restructure his contract and move on to fix the guard, center, and WR problems. We can look at left tackle when we have the luxary of considering an upgrade. Right now we should be looking to stop the ship from taking on water, not getting a new paint job. Well said I agree. Problem is we've made some past big free agent signings in which we may not have a choice but to get rid of Samuels. Left tackle is a postition I wouldn't want to slight at all. I don't know if everyone remembers Shar Pourdanesh & Joe Patton. Pourdanesh had to be the worst left tackle I've ever seen. I still remember Hugh Douglas bull rushing him and just putting him on his back. Thats was ridiculous for a guy his size. I personally think Left tackle and CB our the most important postitions to fill besides QB. RB's come a dime a dozen. We know this from our glory days and ask Denver right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galentjm Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Originally posted by Art Monk Fan You know, when I watch this play, I see Samuels directing the end inside as if he expected help from the guard. The guard chips on the DT, then passes him on to the center, and finally looks outside to help Samuels... only it's too late by then and the DE is past the guard with Samuels racing to catch him from behind. Was the guard slow in getting off his inital block according to scheme? Did Samuels have it wrong and there wasn't inside help on the play? I'd like to know what the blocking scheme called for before I pass judgement. I'd have to disagree that Samuels was directing the end inside. Looks to me that Samules got beat on a nice move by the DE. It appears clear to me that Samuels was caught on his heels and the DE blasted past him to the inside. If anything you'd think Samuels would drive him outside so as to force him to take a longer route to the QB. You could be right that Dockery was late in providing help, but its tough to say with any certainty if that was his assignment. Truth be told, I'm more concerned with Ramsey's decision making on this play. He should have taken the sack, and not forced a ball in to double coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neophyte Posted December 1, 2004 Author Share Posted December 1, 2004 Originally posted by galentjm Truth be told, I'm more concerned with Ramsey's decision making on this play. He should have taken the sack, and not forced a ball in to double coverage. Where do you see double coverage? I have watched this thing mutliple times again just now and it looks to me like Coles has his man beat clean to the outside corner on this play. There is no Safty help coming from the inside at all and even if there was it would be too late. Just Coles and Townsend out there. If Ramsey can step into that throw it is a clean 6 for Coles going away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hog Fever Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 While I can agree with you in one sense that Samuels is not the entire problem with the offensive line I think that he is without his share of the blame. I hope we can at least agree that his play is not on the elite level. The reality of today’s NFL says that you simply cannot keep a player on your roster that will count 9.6 million dollars on your cap for the following year UNLESS he is an elite impact player. I can hardly call his play dominant. Even if you want to call his play slightly above average his pay is out of line with his performance. Good players don’t quit like he admitted to doing last year. A LT is supposed to be a cornerstone that you build your offensive line around. Do you honestly think Chris is that guy? I don’t. If you do think that way I’d like to know why. Someone else mentioned the fact that he should be making Dockery better. I agree completely. I don’t think he’s done that either, at least not to where fans like me can see it. A cornerstone on your offensive shouldn’t be guilty of at least one false start a game either. That just shows me his head is not in the game. Is he serviceable? Sure, but serviceable shouldn’t be what we aspire to should it? I’d hate to go back to the Pardanish days too but I hope that fear doesn’t stop the team from looking for a possible upgrade or someone who can provide equal performance at a better price. That’s just being smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCRoughrider Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Originally posted by Neophyte Where do you see double coverage? I have watched this thing mutliple times again just now and it looks to me like Coles has his man beat clean to the outside corner on this play. There is no Safty help coming from the inside at all and even if there was it would be too late. Just Coles and Townsend out there. If Ramsey can step into that throw it is a clean 6 for Coles going away. I'm not sure that was Ramsey's fault, in any event. I think he threw the ball where Coles was supposed to be. If you remember, from the replay, Coles is drifting back while the DB is stationary. Though if Ramsey had had more time he could have seen Coles drifting back and put a little more on the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.