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

This is from today's Times article:

My boy Chris Samuels SAID, not wrote:"I feel like I've got something to prove," Samuels said. "I have to go out there and play well. Last year I didn't really play the way I'd like to, and the year before I didn't either. I'm just excited about this year. I want to prove a point — that Chris Samuels is back."

I love his attitude. I hope he tries to keep his spirits up the rest of his hopefully LONG Redskins career, even after Buges and the rest are gone.

Jake wrote:This is from today's Times article:

My boy Chris Samuels SAID, not wrote:"I feel like I've got something to prove," Samuels said. "I have to go out there and play well. Last year I didn't really play the way I'd like to, and the year before I didn't either. I'm just excited about this year. I want to prove a point — that Chris Samuels is back."

I love his attitude. I hope he tries to keep his spirits up the rest of his hopefully LONG Redskins career, even after Buges and the rest are gone.

If he knows that he didn't perform great the last 2 years, then he should be smart enough to know he's being over paid this year. He should worry about being a "team player" and re-negotiate his contract, he can "prove" a point without even playing a game.

Yeah, C-Sam is way overpaid

I like him, and he is a great lineman when he gets it together but he should renegotiate.

I agree he's getting paid way to much, but that is great news to hear. I hope he comes out and just tears things up this year

over payed indeed. But hey if you were in his situation and trying to get all that money he can for his home town would you think long and hard about renegotiating.

Read about Samuels down in this forum:

http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic. ... highlight=


I've been arguing for Samuels to renegotiate too, but if all he wants is 15 mill in a signing bonus for a new contract then that's not too much for a pretty good left tackle, even if he hasn't played great the last two years.

The bottom line is that he could get that 15 million in free agency, so there's no reason for him too help the team out unless they help him too. 15 mil for a top flight left tackle (whice we all agree he hasn't been but will be under Bugel) is not too much for the team to pay.

So they need to help each other out, Chris by renegotiating and getting his cap figure lower, and the team by giving him that bonus.

And in addition, there's a lot of people arguing that we don't need Samuels because Brunell is a left-hander. That's baloney. The top-flight DE pass-rushers still rush primarily from the left (except for Strahan), and what happens if Ramsey starts, or takes over if Brunell get's hurt. You win the game in the trenches, and as much as we need the cap space it would hurt to get rid of Chris without getting Gallery, we need as much top flight talent on both lines as we can get.

can someone say "PROBOWL"he is going to be greatin the new system under gibbs.REDSKINZ4EVER!!!

ANT7088 wrote:If he knows that he didn't perform great the last 2 years, then he should be smart enough to know he's being over paid this year. He should worry about being a "team player" and re-negotiate his contract, he can "prove" a point without even playing a game.

Just because he isn't willing to give up millions of dollars for nothing doesn't mean he's not a team player. If he re-negotiates and then returns to his all-pro self, are the Redskins going to give him a raise? Of course not.

cjpck44 wrote:there's a lot of people arguing that we don't need Samuels because Brunell is a left-hander. That's baloney.

I have been one of the people who have argued that having a left-handed quarterback decreases the value of your left tackle and increases the value of your right tackle. I don't really see how that is debatable. I didn't say left tackle no longer matters and therefore we don't need Chris Samuels (just look at Tony Boseli playing left tackle for Brunell in Jacksonville), but my point is that a trade for Gallery might make sense (cap numbers aside) because by the time Ramsey takes over at quarterback, Gallery will be ready to take over as the anchor of the offensive line.

For instance, let's say Samuels will be an "A" left tackle for the next five years, and then become a "B" left tackle. At the same time, Gallery will start off a "B" left tackle for about two years before progressing into an "A" left tackle. Let's also say Ramsey takes over for Brunell in two years. By trading for Gallery, you make sure that your left tackle will be an "A" when it matters most, with the much less mobile and right-handed quarterback Ramsey starting.

None of this is knocking Chris, it's just an age thing and looking into the future a little bit. Once again, I have been told that the Gallery deal won't work because of the cap hit, so that changes everything, but this was the logic behind my argument...

I must agree that a $15 million dollar signing bonus isnt that big of a deal for someone like Samuels. Houston gave Todd Wade (who is average at best) a $10 million bonus. Teams are overpaying right now for OL. We need to keep Samuels. Good tackles are hard to come by. Why do you think every team is drooling over Gallery?

ANT7088 wrote:He should worry about being a "team player" and re-negotiate his contract, he can "prove" a point without even playing a game.

To many people forget this is his job. What would you do if your boss asked you to get a massive pay cut so that they could hire someone else to come in and try to take your job or someone else's?

I don't think 15 million signing bonus isn't that much for an LT that has been very productive. It seems that Samuel has realized that his play for the past 2 year hasn't been good. If, and I think he will because Bugal know how to turn an OL into a dominate force, returned to his probowl days, I beleive he will be compensated for it. Until he returns to his probowl self, he should suck it up and try as hard as he can to improve himself.

Smithian wrote:

ANT7088 wrote:He should worry about being a "team player" and re-negotiate his contract, he can "prove" a point without even playing a game.

To many people forget this is his job. What would you do if your boss asked you to get a massive pay cut so that they could hire someone else to come in and try to take your job or someone else's?

There is a BIG difference between a "Pay-cut" & "renegotiating". He will still get great money, but he won't cost as much this year (and next). A "team player" is a guy who renegotiates his contract so that his "team" can afford to sign other needed positions.

Samuels has re-negotiated twice for this team. When is he going to get all that money? He's bent over backwards for this team before and he deserves his payday. I don't fault Chris one bit. A "team player" is a guy who gives his all on the field, does what the coaches say without making a fuss and doesn't complain about his contract status. As far as I can tell, that fits Chris...

Steve Spurrier III wrote:Samuels has re-negotiated twice for this team. When is he going to get all that money? He's bent over backwards for this team before and he deserves his payday. I don't fault Chris one bit. A "team player" is a guy who gives his all on the field, does what the coaches say without making a fuss and doesn't complaing about his contract status. As far as I can tell, that fits Chris...

Well said

After renegotiating twice .. how much has he been paid in bonus money?

Steve Spurrier III has me a little confused, because he wrote:Samuels has re-negotiated twice for this team. When is he going to get all that money? He's bent over backwards for this team before and he deserves his payday. I don't fault Chris one bit. A "team player" is a guy who gives his all on the field, does what the coaches say without making a fuss and doesn't complaing about his contract status. As far as I can tell, that fits Chris...

Spurrier, I'll go along with a part of that statement, the part where you define a "team player". I have to disagree with the implication that Samuels, due to past concessions, should be paid what he signed for (even if we can move that money around to make it more a "bonus" than a protracted term of contract) because he simply has not played well enough to earn that kind of money.
My feeling is that if he won't renegotiate, he's on the defensive. He's probably thinking exactly what you wrote. Something along the lines of, "Hey, that's what I signed for. I moved everything around twice to help the team. Why should I do it again ? It's somebody else' turn."
I truly feel that if Samuels had had two stellar seasons, he'd be more confident in himself. He'd figure that the money would come sometime because he just so beyond replacement, the team would have to pay him in a big way.
The truth is, he's been an average tackle. You can blame it on whatever feels good to you, if it makes you feel better. Injuries ? Okay. Too many schemes ? That's fine. Coaching changes ? True enough. The NFL today, though, is a bottom line business, and you're only as good as your last game.
If that's true, and I feel it is, then Samuels is being paid for his "potential" rather than any tangible performance rating.
This is not good business, IMHO. He needs to renegotiate, or he needs to hit the road. Sorry, Jake.
Is there a better guy out there, right now, in FA ? I don't know. You'll probably find a few that can do what C-Sam did for the past two years after the June cuts come and go. Still, do you cripple your team keeping a guy who won't take what he's actually earned or do you try to get better ?
That's the big question, SOS. After twelve years of futility, can we finally just get better ?

tcwest10 wrote:I have to disagree with the implication that Samuels...should be paid what he signed for

You don't think the Redskins should have to pay Chris Samuels what he signed for? I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. If Chris chooses to re-negotiate, that's great, but it is a CONTRACT. That means he is owed that money, and no one should fault him for wanting it.

Now you say that he doesn't deserve this money because he hasn't performed well in the past few season. Do you think if he took a pay cut and then returned to his all-pro self, the Redskins would give him that money back? Of course not. Because like you said, this is a business. That's why I don't fault clubs for trying to save money, and that's why I don't fault players for trying to make money...

yeah....pretty much the only thing wrong here is that he "is" a bit overpaid..he has to restructure or i believe he's gonna be outta here..