The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Samuels has got us by the balls. It is a simple fact: We need him. I think he is a fine left tackle (not in the realm of some of the others though) I can't imagine our offensive line w/o him. Who do we replace him with if he leaves or gets injured? Our offensive line depth is weak.

I think Coles, Smoot, and Piece all all great players but are replaceable given our current roster. Samuels is another story. There is nothing else to do but bite the bullet and overpay is greey ass. He is not worth what we are going to pay but whats the alternative? If there wasn't cap ramifications I'd consider releasing him and taking a OT with our #1. But this isn't even an option with the accelleration of his cap.

So here is what we do. Restructure his contract and sign him to a medium-term deal. Work his contract so that we will be able to deal/cut him down the road while we groom a successor. There is no way he should be getting the kind of money he wants for a long period of time. Lets use his services for a couple of seasons and the ship his sorry butt out of town.

We do not need guys like this on the team. I don't remember Jacoby or any of the other HALL OF FAME offensive linemen holding out for star money. And what about Jansen. I would have to say he is better than Samuels and he RESTRUCTED his contract that is considerably less. I guarantee Samuels will be a constant problem as long as he is a Redskin. He already has been.

Constant problem, huh? A guy who already HAS restructured his contract multiple times for the betterment of the team and has appeared in a Pro Bowl? We don't need someone like that one our team?

A tackle who faces the best defensive ends each week, battles an ankle injury ALL season while still starting ALL 16 games and only giving up ONE sack all year is not, as you say, 'sorry'.

Wow, some people here need to grow up before typing out of emotion.

I did not say anything about his playing. I think he is a great football player and I am not knocking his accomplishments. He is just wanting way too much money and he is putting our team in limbo by dragging his feet regarding restructuring his contract. If he structures to a reasonable long-term deal trust me I will be overjoyed. But thats not going to happen unfortunately.

It is Samuels who needs to grow up - and those who would actually put his cancerous name in their signature.

Samuels is a great player who had a "off" year. I think he will re- do his contract. Which is a good thing.

I am dissapointed by the fact that its taking so long to restructure his contract. Hopefully this year he'll show us without a doubt why we're paying him so much money. IMO he had an above average year, but he's capable of more. Hopefully he'll won;t get injured, he'll have Jon holding up the other side and a center who can hold his own. Chris had a lot of things going against him.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I am dissapointed by the fact that its taking so long to restructure his contract. Hopefully this year he'll show us without a doubt why we're paying him so much money. IMO he had an above average year, but he's capable of more. Hopefully he'll won;t get injured, he'll have Jon holding up the other side and a center who can hold his own. Chris had a lot of things going against him.

You are right it ia a little dissapointing taking so long. I think that Samuels is to good just to let go, but if he doesn't re-sign (not enough money) ship him off. I would like to see a deal round the ballpark 7 years 25 million but we all know thats a dream.

Washingtons#1fan wrote:Samuels is a great player who had a "off" year.

"Off" year? Read my signature.

I saw several time's where he was burned by a defensive end blowing past him on the outside. The sack he's talking about was put on sportscenter and thats what Gibbs is taking about b/c it made the joke reel on sportscenter.

I don't know how you actually determine a players true value other than the market, which is based on what another player at the same position is paid. Chris Samuels has already restructered his contract on more than one occasion. I am of the opinion the Redskins would be far better off if they stopped signing playere to contracts they know they won't be able to pay.

LaVar Arrington, and Stephen Davis come to mind immediately, along with Samuels. Stephen Davis espically, they knew they were not going to honor that contract when they signed him to it. So to continue doing this you have to wonder at some point how much of this is fair to the player. I truly hope that Chris will consider restructering one more time however' I don't think it's all up to him, if it was I think it would have been a done deal already. I think it's his agent who is complicating the process as is always the case in deals of this nature that are lengthly and high priced.

Hope is Eternal!!

frankcal20 wrote:I saw several time's where he was burned by a defensive end blowing past him on the outside. The sack he's talking about was put on sportscenter and thats what Gibbs is taking about b/c it made the joke reel on sportscenter.

Gibbs doesn't care what plays make SportsCenter or not. He just cares about production and Chris produced in 2004.

Great Natale wrote:I did not say anything about his playing. I think he is a great football player and I am not knocking his accomplishments. He is just wanting way too much money and he is putting our team in limbo by dragging his feet regarding restructuring his contract. If he structures to a reasonable long-term deal trust me I will be overjoyed. But thats not going to happen unfortunately.

It is Samuels who needs to grow up - and those who would actually put his cancerous name in their signature.

Boss Hog has explained this quite a few times but I couldn't find the link.....

Basically what he said was
My word's not BH's


Samuels can't restucture his contract (as Jake mentioned he has done so twice) We they resturcture a contract the money that is do in salary + unpaid bonus monies are turned into a signing bonus and spread out the length of a back loaded (salary gets higher and higher as the contract ages)contract for cap purposes.

Samuels can extend his contract but he has money still on the table from redoing his original contract so many times.
He wants to be paid what is owed to him and it's hard to make those number fit.

In the end think he'll sign a extention that provides some cap relief but not what we are hoping for. Then go out in '05 and have a Pro Bowl year

UPDATE:

Agent Jimmy Sexton and Washington negotiated Saturday, and the sense is that momentum is toward a new contract, one that might reward Samuels with the highest signing bonus in Redskins history.

A LARGER CONTRACT THAN LAVAR? A LARGER CONTRACT THAN PORTIS?

Sorry, Samuels is not worth it...he is an above average tackle with room to improve.

This guy is going to become the ball and chain I feared he would become (contract wise).

5 more years of "restructuring".

...Samuels is NOT worth more than Portis.

Isn't that the whole point of restructuring?!

To give them a bigger bonus so it counts less against the cap?

If so, then this is good, Samuels will get a much lower base salary.

Skinsfan55 wrote:Isn't that the whole point of restructuring?!

To give them a bigger bonus so it counts less against the cap?

If so, then this is good, Samuels will get a much lower base salary.

There's a difference between restructuring an existing contract and extending a contract. The Skins are not restucturing his contract because there is no more wiggle room in his current contract. If they extend his contract it will be a whole new contract, and if they give them a huge bonus it will still apply to the cap...he will get a low base salary but if they over pay him his signing bonus could be a problem in a few years and we will be right back in the same situation with Samuels in 2007/2008.

Same thing with Lavar...

Snyder has created this cap monster....it's either take the huge cap it or create another huge cap hit.

Hopefully we can just keep pushing off the cap problems and they'll never collapse. fingers crossed.

PS...the more money you have tied up in one player the less you have for otheres. i.e.: Peyton Manning
....is Chris Samuels a Peyton Manning?

Man. I hate that guy.

I don't understand the cap implication regarding Samuels. I am told through other threads that the final two years of his contract cannot be restructured b/c that is signing bonus money that can't be further tinkered with. Then what is all this talk about the need for Samuels to sign an extension for us to be under the cap?

yeah well Jake... as a guy who watches the left tackle more than he watches the quarterback... they can all SAY whatever they want... Chris was not only not 'perfect' this year, he was extremely mediocre.

You're right... try not to comment on it WITH emotion.

But you are right about pretty much everything else on Samuels.

I've gone over Chris' restructure vs extension ad nauseum... I'm not going to again. Sufficeth to say that comments like "Lets use his services for a couple of seasons and the ship his sorry butt out of town." are the exact reason that players have agents that play hardball like they do.

I can't wait to see how we do with Jansen back in there, keeping everybody's head in the game where it belongs.

The only person(s) you can blame are the ones who sign these players to these balooning contracts. It is insane. The backloading of the money plus the signing bonuses are hurting teams who want to build a team for the long haul. You can't trade people like Coles because of the cap hit and you can't afford players like Samuels in the 4th and 5th year of their contract for the same reason.

Cerrato and "The Daniel" are the ones to blame, not Samuels or Arrington.

This is not Samuels fault. It's what happens when you restructure a guy so many times. He's owed 6 million in bonus over the next two years. The reason that number is so high, is because of the restructures. When you restructure a player, you give them a bonus again. That's the incentive for them to restructure. Signing bonuses are the only guaranteed money in the NFL. His base salary is huge. 6.5 million in 05 and a little over 8 million in 06. That's unheard of. But, the good thing, is that those numbers will disappear when he signs an extension or is cut or traded.

The only thing that will stick around on our cap is that 6 million. Here's a scenario of what will happen if he signs an extension. Let's say he gets a 15 million signing bonus on a 7 year 40 million contract.

That would make his cap hit about 5.55 in 05 and 06. Then with his old signing bonus off the books, in 07 his base salary would start increasing and his bonus hit would be 2.14 million. So basically if we sign him to an extension, his cap hit would likely be about 5.5 mil for the rest of his career. It might be a little lower in in 07 and a little larger in the later years of the contract if Snyder backloads it again though...

Scottskins wrote:This is not Samuels fault. It's what happens when you restructure a guy so many times. He's owed 6 million in bonus over the next two years. The reason that number is so high, is because of the restructures. When you restructure a player, you give them a bonus again. That's the incentive for them to restructure. Signing bonuses are the only guaranteed money in the NFL. His base salary is huge. 6.5 million in 05 and a little over 8 million in 06. That's unheard of. But, the good thing, is that those numbers will disappear when he signs an extension or is cut or traded.

The only thing that will stick around on our cap is that 6 million. Here's a scenario of what will happen if he signs an extension. Let's say he gets a 15 million signing bonus on a 7 year 40 million contract.

That would make his cap hit about 5.55 in 05 and 06. Then with his old signing bonus off the books, in 07 his base salary would start increasing and his bonus hit would be 2.14 million. So basically if we sign him to an extension, his cap hit would likely be about 5.5 mil for the rest of his career. It might be a little lower in in 07 and a little larger in the later years of the contract if Snyder backloads it again though...

I agree, he is not a problem and he still one of the best O-L men in the league.

Well, don't get me wrong. I actually don't like Samuels that much. He seems to be pretty average to me. Well I should say, he's not elite. He's probably among the top of the 2nd level of LTs. While that in itself isn't too bad, and probably good enough for our line, he wants top tier pay I believe. If not, then sign him up =)

I'm just tired of having some of these contracts that we can't work with. Lavar being a big one, even though I love LA the player and person.

Samuels has been one of the bigger contracts we've had to deal with since he signed with us. If we can get another guy like him for a lesser price, I wouldn't be opposed to trading him...

You guys are wasting your time being mad at Samuels.

You should be mad at one person because of that contract and how it screwing you...and that person's name is Dan Snyder.

I don't think we should be mad at anyone. Snyder bascially set the tone for circumventing the cap. Now we are dealing with the end of those decisions he made back then. It's nothing that is going to hurt us that badly. We just can't sign too many big FAs. All in all, if the team decides to get out from under Samuels contract, it only costs 6 mil this season and takes 11.3 million off the 2006 cap.

I always find it funny how people talk about us being in cap hell, yet we've never had to purge like San Fransisco or more recently the Titans. 2006 is our telling year. Were pretty far over the projected cap, but things like an extension for Samuels or just plain cutting him will immediately remedy that.

Snyder has done nothing to make me dislike him. Even the Deion signing while I hated it, wasn't that big a deal. Snyder is trying to win. That in a nutshell is all I care about. I've never had to endure a penny pinching owner, like Jeff Lurie was, and I hope to god I never do...

At the start of the year, I always know we have a shot. Hasn't been much of a shot recently, but the shot is still there. The Eagles of old, Cincy of old, and currently the 49ers didn't/don't have a shot because of their owners. Snyder is moving in the right direction, especially now that Gibbs is here, and that's huge for me personally.