Profootballtalk:'Skins Still Angling For O-GUN

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 9:43 pm

POSTED 9:42 p.m. EDT, July 24, 2004

'SKINS DENY CONTACT WITH O-GUN

Redskins V.P. Karl Swanson says that our recent report regarding efforts by owner Dan Snyder to pass messages through intermediaries to Miami defensive end Adewale Ogunleye is "bullsh-t."

"There has been no contact concerning Ogunleye with anyone," Swanson wrote in an e-mail sent to us on Saturday afternoon. "If [your source] knew anything at all, they would know Snyder has been on vacation on a boat for the past two weeks and virtually incommunicado."

Swanson also expressed disdain for the report on the basis that the source opted not to alert the league office to a violation of the tampering rules.

But, as a practical matter, no one reports tampering because tampering investigations go nowhere. Last year, for example, Lawyer Milloy told CNNSI's Peter King that the Redskins had made him a contract offer before he was released by the Patriots. When Milloy clammed up, the issue died.

In Ogunleye's case, the story isn't that Snyder is calling Ogunleye or his agent directly, but that Snyder has passed word through others to Ogunleye that the Redskins remain interested in acquiring him via a trade with the Dolphins. And, obviously, it's possible that the source is getting bad information from one or more links in the alleged communication chain.

Moreover, no one expects the Redskins to admit such conduct, especially after last year's near-miss with Milloy. If anything, Swanson's vehement denial of any contact makes us wonder whether he doth protest too much.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 11:28 pm

Here's my thought. I dont know anything about this guy but i feel that any of these guys would want to step it up. I like the small name guys.
Young defensive linemen who could emerge include Greg White, a second-year player who posted four sacks in a 2002 preseason game, and Nic Clemons, a first-year player who developed his skills on the Redskins' practice squad last season.

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 3:47 am

All I meant to say is, no one player is bigger than the team. If trading Samuels to Miami for this guy is the only way to upgrade ourselves at the End (and aren't we all whining and bitchin' about having a weak front four on paper ?), then I say "Do it". Why ? Because I know that Bugel can get more from any offensive lineman than the guy knew he had. I am also firm in my belief that the biggest reason we did what we done in the draft was cuz we knew C-Sam was gonna give us a continued "hard time" about coming down in his pay. I'm sure he's a real gem in person, an upstanding citizen and nice to his dog. Still, and once again, no one player is bigger than the team.
Unlike Jake, I've never had my picture taken with the man. I have no personal ties. I am a fan of the Washington Redskins. If trading Samuels makes the Redskins a more complete (if not necessarily "better") team, then let's just do it. Sometimes, in chess, you give up a knight to get a rook if you think you can do more damage down the line that way. Is it a gamble ? Sure it is. But, hey. What isn't ?

DEHog · Post by **DEHog** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 9:05 am

Champsturf wrote: After all, I'm one of those that isn't sold on Portis yet either.

I hear ya CT but I think we miss Champ more than we like Portis....I wake up at night in a cold sweat...I've just seen visions of Springs trying to catch TO :-&

Jake · Post by **Jake** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 9:05 am

tcwest10 wrote:All I meant to say is, no one player is bigger than the team.

Chris, as of now, isn't acting like he's bigger than the team because he put of the contract discussions until after the season's done. But if he does it during the season, he will probably go about it in a quiet manner like Jansen in December 2002.

And you say "no one player is bigger than the team"? That's certainly not the stance that Ogunleye is taking when it comes to the Dolphins. So why would you want a player that on our team?

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 9:54 am

Jake wrote:
tcwest10 wrote:All I meant to say is, no one player is bigger than the team.

Chris, as of now, isn't acting like he's bigger than the team because he put of the contract discussions until after the season's done. But if he does it during the season, he will probably go about it in a quiet manner like Jansen in December 2002.

And you say "no one player is bigger than the team"? That's certainly not the stance that Ogunleye is taking when it comes to the Dolphins. So why would you want a player that on our team?

Sorry Jake, but I think this may be Chris' last year with the team either way. That is why we went with depth in the later rounds and after the draft. I don't have a problem with contract disputes during the offseason. O-gun is going to get good money no matter where he is. That being said, I would still rather trade a WR (Rod Gardner), or now that Ricky's gone, an extra RB for him. I would prefer to hang on to our #1 pick for next year to get a top-flight DE.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 9:55 am

RUMOR

DESPERATE FINS TRADING O-GUN FOR A-TRAIN?

In the wake of running back Ricky Williams' stunning decision to retire after only five NFL seasons, our Chicago mole tells us that the Fins already have been in contact with the Bears regarding a possible trade of defensive end Adewale Ogunleye for a package of players including running back Anthony Thomas.

Per the mole, the other players traded could include receiver David Terrell and/or right tackle Aaron Gibson, in order to help the Bears clear enough cap room to sign Ogunleye to a long-term contract.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 10:02 am

Any combo of Samuels, Gardner,and Betts would be to much without us getting something else

jklote · Post by **jklote** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 10:27 am

1niksder wrote:Any combo of Samuels, Gardner,and Betts would be to much without us getting something else

Agree. Oguljksghskjgh only had one good year as well. Im not sold on him enough to trade 3 productive players and give him a huge contract. That sounds too risky.

chalktalk · Post by **chalktalk** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 10:55 am

Champsturf wrote:Does anyone really think Ogunleye is that good? I mean really...He has Jason Taylor on that line with him. I wonder who got all those double teams, leaving Ogun man to man. After all, I'm one of those that isn't sold on Portis yet either.

That's the whole point why the Skins *should* be interested in Ogun. Think about the defensive coordinator and the schemes he wants to employ.

If they got Ogun, they'd get a guy who'd now be the focus of double teams. And that ALONE is value to the Redskins defensive scheme. Sure, Ogun might not be able to break them like premier pass rushers (J. Taylor), my suspicion is he'd still get a fair share of sacks (6-7).

But the fact he'd get the double teams, would open up Williams defensive scheme to allow him to call the different blitz packages that honestly, he's going to be afraid to call this year because nowhere on that, NOBODY, will command any attention like Ogun would.

You double Ogun, you might leave lavar one on one in some situations with a RB on the other side. Things like that. There is big value just in the fact of the respect Ogun would get on that defensive line. It would open up Williams' play calling thoroughly. Right now, honestly, it cant be opened up 100% because he doesnt have an NFL calibre premier rusher.

As for Samuels, I like him. And he's good. But the team is going to face tons of trouble in 2006 with their cap. If they can trade him now, and take absorb the cap hit now and in 2005 it'll make 2006 much more manageable and with that in mind, the FO would want to consider a contract with Ogun that is heavy in 2005 and 2007 but light in 2006.

Wysocki · Post by **Wysocki** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 12:21 pm

I think Joe has already basically told the players in their last meeting: "the team will be made from among the guys in this room..." Stop this player revolving door, especially with the high-priced guys that could ruin whatever chemistry/player leadership that has been developed so far...having said that we'll see some low-paid guys brought in later to improve the team from the bottom up...

Smithian · Post by **Smithian** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 3:02 pm

Wysocki wrote:having said that we'll see some low-paid guys brought in later to improve the team from the bottom up...

Low Paid = Redskins = ?

HERESY! WYSOKI IS A WITCH!

Jake · Post by **Jake** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 5:50 pm

1niksder wrote:RUMOR

DESPERATE FINS TRADING O-GUN FOR A-TRAIN?

In the wake of running back Ricky Williams' stunning decision to retire after only five NFL seasons, our Chicago mole tells us that the Fins already have been in contact with the Bears regarding a possible trade of defensive end Adewale Ogunleye for a package of players including running back Anthony Thomas.

Per the mole, the other players traded could include receiver David Terrell and/or right tackle Aaron Gibson, in order to help the Bears clear enough cap room to sign Ogunleye to a long-term contract.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

That is the first thing I said to my brother-in-law today. I said to him "The Bears are going to trade A-Train for O-Gun." I thought it would be A-Train and a pick or two... not bums like Gibson and Terrell.

Man, I'm good! I predicted this AND Antawn Jamison going to the Wizards! I must be butter cuz I'm on a roll. :lol:

Yes, I know that was corny but whatcha gonna do?

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 8:13 pm

tcwest10 wrote:All I meant to say is, no one player is bigger than the team.

Jake wrote:Chris, as of now, isn't acting like he's bigger than the team because he put of the contract discussions until after the season's done.
And you say "no one player is bigger than the team"?

Yes, I do say that. I mean it in the context of "deal-breaker", as I wrote. When someone says, "Well, so-and-so could be acquired in a trade for such-and-such", and the trade addresses a very serious need, coupled with a guy from a very deep position on our side...
I don't see the "deal-breaker". Samuels was simply an average O-Lineman last year, and he's giving us trouble on renegotiating. Is he a tackle who can also play center and guard ? Nope. You don't pay on "potential" due to a coaching change with a fifth year guy, Jake. He missed three starts last year, had a subpar season and doesn't want to help reduce the payroll. It doesn't matter that he's done it before; Football should be a Per Diem deal. You should be paid for the work you do. Jansen and Samuels are apples and oranges, comparatively.
Do you want to blame it all on his agents ? LaVar's busted contract ? Spurrier ? Fine. Doesn't matter to me. I feel that I am the more objective observer here. I have never claimed to know more about football or the Redskins than you do, Jake. I can't, and I won't. Still, I know what I see on the television. I see Samuels popping around like a Mexican Jumping Bean. Can Bugel get that under control ? Sure, he can. But he can also do it with a raw, untested rookie, at a much lower price. You might be too young to recall, but you can easily look it up, if you haven't already.
To sum it all up, the inclusion of Chris Samuels in a deal for a really good DE is not necessarily a "deal-breaker".
It's very do-able.

Jake · Post by **Jake** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 8:26 pm

tcwest10 wrote:
tcwest10 wrote:All I meant to say is, no one player is bigger than the team.

Jake wrote:Chris, as of now, isn't acting like he's bigger than the team because he put of the contract discussions until after the season's done.
And you say "no one player is bigger than the team"?

Yes, I do say that. I mean it in the context of "deal-breaker", as I wrote. When someone says, "Well, so-and-so could be acquired in a trade for such-and-such", and the trade addresses a very serious need, coupled with a guy from a very deep position on our side...
I don't see the "deal-breaker". Samuels was simply an average O-Lineman last year, and he's giving us trouble on renegotiating. Is he a tackle who can also play center and guard ? Nope. You don't pay on "potential" due to a coaching change with a fifth year guy, Jake. He missed three starts last year, had a subpar season and doesn't want to help reduce the payroll. It doesn't matter that he's done it before; Football should be a Per Diem deal. You should be paid for the work you do. Jansen and Samuels are apples and oranges, comparatively.
Do you want to blame it all on his agents ? LaVar's busted contract ? Spurrier ? Fine. Doesn't matter to me. I feel that I am the more objective observer here. I have never claimed to know more about football or the Redskins than you do, Jake. I can't, and I won't. Still, I know what I see on the television. I see Samuels popping around like a Mexican Jumping Bean. Can Bugel get that under control ? Sure, he can. But he can also do it with a raw, untested rookie, at a much lower price. You might be too young to recall, but you can easily look it up, if you haven't already.
To sum it all up, the inclusion of Chris Samuels in a deal for a really good DE is not necessarily a "deal-breaker".
It's very do-able.

I watched every game last year and saw what everyone else saw. He did screw UP A LOT last year, but then again... who didn't?

But when it comes to Samuels... everyone points out his contract and regrets to recognize his improvement during the second half of the year. The WHOLE LINE improved after Spurrier put in protection schemes. Gibbs' WHOLE offense emphasizes protection of the quarterback. The line improved when protection was emphasized last year and that's the line we will see this year. Big contract or small... Chris will do his job.

Quality left tackles are just about the hardest to find in this league. Good linemen can come and go. Obviously our d-line is the biggest weakness but don't you think that if it was that much of a liability that Gibbs and Co. would have done something by now?

It's aparent that what has been built through the mini camps has satisfied the staff so far.

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 8:50 pm

Do you mean to say that Joe Bugel can't get the job done without a "superstar" at (gasp!) left tackle ?
That isn't my experience with Gibbs and Co. Believe me, Jake...the old man is well prepared for the anticipated continued issues with your guy. You don't think Bugel brough in two other tackles in the draft by accident, do you ?
I think a fast DE would be of a greater benefit to us.

Jake then wrote: "Gibbs' WHOLE offense emphasizes protection of the quarterback.

Yes, that's true. It doesn't revolve around one player.
Samuels is expendable. How many tackles on the roster right now ? Kenyatta Jones, right ? Mark Wilson, Brandon Winey, that Whitson guy, Daryl Terrell, Justin McElfish, Jansen, Scott Harper, Kareem Ellis, Pita Elisara, Quinn Christensen...
Are you telling me that Bugel hasn't prepared himself for the possible trade ?
Nobody is telling you that you have to say "goodbye" to C-Sam. All I'm saying is, he isn't good enough to be a "deal-breaker" for a really good DE trade.

Jake · Post by **Jake** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 9:04 pm

tcwest10 wrote:It doesn't revolve around one player.
Samuels is expendable. How many tackles on the roster right now ? Kenyatta Jones, right ? Mark Wilson, Brandon Winey, that Whitson guy, Daryl Terrell, Justin McElfish, Jansen, Scott Harper, Kareem Ellis, Pita Elisara, Quinn Christensen...

And you think those guys can be full time starters? You can't be serious. We haven't seen Winey play in more than three games for us. Yes he was good in those three games but he is not of Samuels' quality.

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 9:08 pm

Was Samuels a full time starter last year ? And, what is this mysterious "quality" you write of ? You pick on Winey all you want, but if Brunell gets the nod...it's Jansen who bears the load. Think about it.

RedskinsRule56 · Post by **RedskinsRule56** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 9:53 pm

I have always like Chris Samuels BUT if he is unwilling to resturture his contract then he defintely becomes more expendable! He had a very dissapointing year last year. I still do feel that he defintely can get back to the Pro Bowl Caliber player that he is but acquiring "The Prince" Ogunleye would boost our D-line tremendously! Bugel should be able to take one of the many Tackles we have and develop him into a solid enough starter. Maybe we can move Raymer out of the center spot or Friedman from center to tackle!

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 3:06 am

Samuels is gone after this season anyway. Why not get the most for him while we still can? It is similar to the Champ Bailey deal.

Jake · Post by **Jake** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 7:15 am

tcwest10 wrote:Was Samuels a full time starter last year ? And, what is this mysterious "quality" you write of ? You pick on Winey all you want, but if Brunell gets the nod...it's Jansen who bears the load. Think about it.

Did Chris miss three games because of injury or poor play?

And the quality I'm talking about is the quality that sent Chris to three straight Pro Bowls... even if he didn't deserve it last year.

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 2:32 am

Hey, Jake...let's not use that popularity contest they call the "Pro Bowl" as any type of measuring stick here, okay ? To me, it doesn't matter why a player missed three games. There were a multitude of times when certain players should've been benched last season for poor play. Whether Samuels was one of those is best left by me for others to say. The bottom line is, Samuels as tradebait is no deal-breaker. Granted, I wouldn't trade him for another TE and a bag of balls...but I wouldn't blink if the Dolphins wanted him for O-Gun. Even-Steven, no picks. I'd do it in a heartbeat.
This is all I'm gonna say about it. We'll have to agree to disagree here.

Waterboy · Post by **Waterboy** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 4:54 am

Man, this is a tricky dilemma. The Skins need a little help along the D-Line (especially at DE), yet Samuels is a very good OT. (Sigh.) It all depends on what JG and his coaches regard as the "deeper" part of the team--is there a back-up to Samuels awaiting his turn to shine, or would it be too risky a move to give up CS for the O-Gun?

Lord, give JG and his peeps wisdom.

Waterboy