Atlanta Skins Fan Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 I know we drafted Chris Samuels as the second player in the draft in 2000, and I know he made the Pro Bowl last year with La Var. Personally, I thought Stephen Davis and Champ Bailey deserved it more, and I was surprised by the vote. (Glad for La Var, who I thought was the best at his position.) I'm glad we've got Samuels -- he seems above average for LT, a critical position, and has held up well against some top DEs. But last year he seemed off-sides way too much and gave up more sacks than you'd expect for a Pro Bowler. Is Samuels a better run or pass blocker as a LT? Did he really deserve that Pro Bowl spot? Also, I was reviewing a Skins salary chart, and it seems Samuels has a substantially better contract than La Var -- similar signing bonus, but with more salary in the later years (2003-06). By 2006, he's scheduled to make $7.5M, next to La Var's $440K. See here: http://home.earthlink.net/~wahoofamily/salary.htm I like Chris Samuels, but I like La Var more. Samuels will make 10 times as much money each year from 2003 - 06, and to me that spells one unhappy La Var. By these years, La Var's signing bonus will be a distant memory, and we might have one very disgruntled star LB. Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddha Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 Samuels's contract was very similar to LaVar's but he either restructured or earned incentives that boosted the base salaries over the life of his contract (probably a combination of both). I wouldn't be too worried about LaVar though. Even though his base salaries are small, he most certainly has built in performance incentives that would more than make up for it (ie., making the Pro Bowl, number of tackles, number of starts, etc.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 Arrington's salary #'s - which are consistent with NFLPA - would clearly indicate he has since renegotiated his contract. And yet I don't recall mention of it anywhere. But I can guarantee you those weren't the salary numbers on his original contract. Don't undervalue Chris Samuels. Samuels is the best lineman on our roster bar none. And he's worth every penny we pay him. Overall, I'd say Samuels is a better pass-blocker than run-blocker. He seems to win most battles every weekend against some of the league's best pass-rushers. Though he's not invincible - very few are - he's as close as you get. And he's a very good run-blocker as well. And if you put a decent guard beside him - for instance Ben Coleman - we'd never have to worry about the left side of the line. Davis gets most of his yardage rushing to the left side. OTOH, I think Jon Jansen is perhaps the most overrated Redskin on the roster. We love him because he's a blue collar guy who keeps his mouth shut and gives you 100%. He seems to have a knack for keeping Strahan at bay... but then at times he's susceptible to weaker rushers. And Jansen also has the benefit of TEs helping on blocks on occasion. Jansen is solid... but if his contract demands are outrageous... I'd sooner part with him than tie up a large part of our cap on a RT. It's unjust to compare a LT and LB. But both Samuels and Arrington form the nucleus of the Skins. And I wouldn't feel nearly as confident as I do about the team right now if there was one without the other. 49 to go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 Atlanta, I have to ask about the sig. Do you pronouce that like the first sylable of the ballet company? I ask because my name is Geoffrey pronounced like the ballet, but I go by just Geof. I've only met one other with the name, so I had to ask. As for why the discrepancies in the contract, I think it's a position thing. OT are typically viewed as harder to replace than LB. A typical FA vet min LB is often decent enough. A vet min OT on a QB's blindside is a death sentence for an O. I think the salaries reflect the dropoff in effectiveness btw a good player at the position and a vet min player. Heck Dallas went to the superbowl multiple times with the guiding philosiphy that the ydidn't want to pay big money for LBs in the era of FA. I'd wager that left OT is probably viewed as teh second hardet position to fill effectively in the NFL after QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted April 23, 2002 Author Share Posted April 23, 2002 Samuels also seemed to rack up a lot of holding penalties last year. I know he plays the toughest line position, but I was surprised by the number of false starts, holding and sacks allowed. Does anyone have access to these detailed stats? I did a Google search and struck out. Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 I believe I read somewhere that Samuels surrended 2-3 sacks last year with one of them a missed assignment. You won't find a single LT anywhere - including the Bosellis, Pace' and Ogdens - that goes an entire season without yielding a sack or two. And good luck finding those types of stats Virtually impossible. If I recall correctly, there may be 1 site that would offer that kind of indepth data... though I can't remember the name of the site and I don't have it bookmarked. 48 to go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romberjo Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 I know we drafted Chris Samuels as the second player in the draft in 2000, and I know he made the Pro Bowl last year with La Var. Atlanta Skins Fan: We drafted LaVar second and Chris third. (There were rumors that we were threatening to draft LaVar third to counter his agent's unreasonable salary demands, and/or to reward Chris's more reasonable demands, but we went ahead and picked LaVar, whom we wanted more, before Chris.) In the absence of something really unusual (e.g., Ricky Williams' bizarrely incentive-laden contract), that means LaVar got a slightly better overall contract than Chris. As Buddha suggests (and he'd know better than I), we likely renegotiated LaVar's contract to save cap $. That wouldn't change his projected overall compensation much at all -- it would just mean that we're guaranteeing we'll pay more of it in exchange for saving cap space in the short-term. Not a great idea in general, but a pretty painless way to save cap space if you're confident the player won't be cut and will be unlikely to suffer a career-ending injury (and it does seem like LaVar could play through pretty much anything). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted April 23, 2002 Author Share Posted April 23, 2002 Originally posted by gbear Atlanta, I have to ask about the sig. Do you pronouce that like the first sylable of the ballet company? I ask because my name is Geoffrey pronounced like the ballet, but I go by just Geof. I've only met one other with the name, so I had to ask. I pronounce it like "Jeff", which is the modern American simplification of the name. You see a lot more "Geoff"s in the U.K., and the name with that spelling dates from before Chaucer. As far as the pronunciation history, I don't know. It sure seems that with a spelling like that, it might have been more commonly pronounced "Joff" at one time (like the ballet company), but now the "Jeff" pronunciation is nearly universal. You're the first I've encountered who pronounces it "Joff". Do you hang out with Colin Powell? Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyskinsfan Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 go Die Hard, go, go :laugh: and counting...... I agree on the position comparison, but at first glance it did appear the numbers favored Samuels. Another thing on the incentives laid in Samuels contract, which I am sure paid him quite nicely for that low sack count, is it may have more up front the first few years and downhill afterwards, whereas LaVars overall contract picks up as he closes in on his 4th, 5th and 6th year. To me Jansen is improving and yes gets help at TE, but if I picked 10 tackles right now in the NFL, he and Samuels measure up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 Fi Fi, Rock Jansen isnt overrated and the TE on his side is generally Flemister to move the SS and or OLB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 With the salary cap rules as they are, the general rule is "never read long term contracts at face value. You've identified two different types of contracts, both of which will be renegotiated before the expire, but for different reasons. Arrington's contract was designed as a vehicle to get him a lot of bonus money up front. In the NFL, only bonus money is guaranteed. The salary was a virtual afterthought - up to a point. The idea is to at some point, likely in a couple of years, to sit down at the bargaining table to extend Arrington's contract, set him up with a new bonus, and to assign a relatively modest salary level over the life of the contract. Samuels had a different set of priorities with his contract. He wanted a combination of length and high, rising salary levels. However, like in most long-term contracts for stars, the final years do little except to inflate the total value of the contract for ego purposes. They really aren't ever meant to be paid, and everyone knows it. Like Arrington, in a couple of years, we'll renegotiate with Samuels and extend his contract before that devastating final contract year comes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 Actually the back-ends of contract do not inflate primarily for 'ego' but to create a situation where 1)the bullet is bitten (maybe the $ is cheap for the position) 2)management is forced to renegotiate (and the big back-end provides a starting point for the renegotiations) or 3)is a 'cap-casualty' (like Armistead). In Trotter's case, for instance, this structure allows him to garner 2-3 more big paydays if he stays healthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.