Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Asante Samuel

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-05-2007, 08:28 AM   #31
Franchise Player
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 35
Posts: 9,880
Re: asante samuel

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemnseven View Post
Bingo. I don't think anybody blows the "run-stopping corners" out of proportion more than we do here at The Warpath.

Sure it's nice to say that your corners can do that. If you are football player, one of the most basic things they teach you all the way back to pee-wee football is how to tackle. If you are that concerned about your cornerbacks being able to stop the run, then you have problems anyway.

I'm not saying one way or the other about whether we should go after Asante Samuel. Maybe he is too expensive. Maybe it would be nice to have a guy in the secondary who has demonstrated an ability to catch the football better than anyone we have now.

But can we please stop with the bullsh*t about not going after ball-hawking corners who can shut down a receiver because he supposedly can't "stop the run" ?
How is it blowing it out of proportion? It is widely reported and hell we have all seen it with our own eyes. Our defense requires that corners actually be able to make a tackle in open field. It is a 100% pertinent point. Does anyone here actually think that the only reason we didn't go after Samuel was because he offers no help in run support? Had we been blowing it out of proportion something tells me the Skins would have been salivating to get him here yet we never heard word one about that.
FRPLG is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 04-05-2007, 08:40 AM   #32
Playmaker
 
724Skinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 3,504
Re: asante samuel

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG View Post
Well part of it is actual effort and Smoot showed a lot of that when he was here.
Definitely. Smoot showed a lot of toughness the first time around. He was pretty small coming out of college but I remember him playing hard and injured (bruised sternum?). I have confidence in him being a very solid contributor, especially due to the fact that he wanted to come back here after we refused to resign him at his asking price. Asante can go sulk with the Patriots, we don't need him.
__________________
"I hope I'm getting better. I hope you haven't seen my best." - Jim Zorn
724Skinsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2007, 10:24 AM   #33
Registered User
 
redskinsfanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 542
Re: Asante Samuel

another piece of eye candy that the redskins do'nt need!
redskinsfanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2007, 10:40 AM   #34
Playmaker
 
freddyg12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,540
Re: Asante Samuel

I don't think Samuel is as good at his position as Briggs is at his. Briggs could seriously help shore up one side of the field (not advocating the trade btw), whereas Samuel is good enough to shut down a lot of #1 wr's, but he's not worth the $ he's looking for. If we could get him for under 15mil bonus I'd say it'd be a good deal, but based on what Clements & Bly got, I think Samuel will want something in between, say 18-19 mil. I don't think we need to put that kind of bonus toward anybody right now. IF we have to pay the #6 pick that kind of money, at least we have the draft & salary structure to blame for it since picks 1-5 will dictate salary terms. Another reason it would be good to move down & acquire more, cheaper talent.
freddyg12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2007, 11:23 AM   #35
The Starter
 
warriorzpath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,576
Re: Asante Samuel

I think Asante Samuel is a good corner. And judging last year's performance, he is head and shoulders above Carlos Rogers.

Is he worth trading down for ? Considering what the redskins want at #6 (and I know that this has been discussed to death with a number of opinions), I think yes - he is worth trading down for.

Is he worth paying for at his probable asking price? I think no, because the redskins seem strapped against the cap, as it is, in future years. And I wouldn't want to unneccessarily sacrifice and cut a good player in the future or limit the options with cap space.
warriorzpath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2007, 11:26 AM   #36
The Starter
 
warriorzpath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,576
Re: Asante Samuel

... so I would not consider trading for him because of cap/salary issues.
warriorzpath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2007, 12:47 PM   #37
The Starter
 
#56fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Charlotte NC
Age: 39
Posts: 1,788
Re: Asante Samuel

I am all for upgrading our team with any position. but I would have to vote no against this. Samuel is a good corner, but with our addition of smoot, that leaves 3 starting corners and dont think we need 4 starting caliber corners. i dont think that is much an area of concern as other portions of our team. Coverage is as good as the pressure up front. and we all know we had absolutely no pressure. I dont care who you are, champ, Dieon if you have to cover a WR in the NFL for 5 seconds or more, he will get open. If your corners know they only have 2 to 3 seconds before the ball is coming out, then they are much better, or appear to be much better than they are. With no pressure our secondary looked like swiss cheese, and pretty much any NFL team that generates no pressure will too. I think we are fine where we are right now. Hey, here is a crazy thought, if we had some picks we could probably pick up a decent corner in the 2nd or 3rd round! OOPS, i guess that wont happen.
#56fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2007, 01:39 PM   #38
Pro Bowl
 
Beemnseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Age: 40
Posts: 5,293
Re: asante samuel

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG View Post
How is it blowing it out of proportion? It is widely reported and hell we have all seen it with our own eyes. Our defense requires that corners actually be able to make a tackle in open field. It is a 100% pertinent point. Does anyone here actually think that the only reason we didn't go after Samuel was because he offers no help in run support? Had we been blowing it out of proportion something tells me the Skins would have been salivating to get him here yet we never heard word one about that.

I'm saying that I just don't think there's much to this notion that there are corners who are so lacking in run support abilities that they can't make it in this defense. They won't make it in ANY defense!!! Everybody has to know how to tackle. People who can't won't make it in football. It's my belief that when we all say, "oh, we don't need this cornerback, he can't tackle" -- that's fan-speak. If Gregg Williams' defense is so nuanced to the point that it can't work with prototypical corners, then there would be no cornerbacks on his roster -- there'd be nothing but strong safeties.

And just where is it written that Asante Samuel "can't make a tackle in the open field"? Do we have actual proof of this claim? Would Bill Belichick keep someone on his roster than can't make an open field tackle? Of course not.

That's why all this talk of cornerbacks like Asante Samuel not being suitable for this particular defense in the judgement of Warpathers is absolute nonsense.
Beemnseven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2007, 01:45 PM   #39
MVP
 
12thMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,453
Re: asante samuel

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemnseven View Post
I'm saying that I just don't think there's much to this notion that we cannot bring corners in who can't provide run support. Everybody has to know how to tackle. People who can't won't make it in football. It's my belief that when we all say, "oh, we don't need this cornerback, he can't tackle" -- that's fan-speak. If Gregg Williams' defense is so nuanced to the point that it can't work with prototypical corners, then there would be no cornerbacks on his roster -- there'd be nothing but strong safeties.

And just where is it written that Asante Samuel "can't make a tackle in the open field"? Do we have actual proof of this claim? Would Bill Belichick keep someone on his roster than can't make an open field tackle? Of course not.

That's why all this talk of cornerbacks like Asante Samuel not being suitable for this particular defense in the judgement of Warpathers is absolute nonsense.
I think I tend to agree with you here. We talk up how specialized Gregg Williams defense is, but my God, we just need football players.
12thMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2007, 01:53 PM   #40
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 79,460
Re: Asante Samuel

Sorry, but there are guys that are cut out for playing in certain systems and I don't think that's fan speak at all.

Cover 2 corners are going to be your bigger corners, guys that can play the run but they don't have to be great in coverage because of the scheme and the help they get from the safeties.

Cover guys are more likely to be the smaller, quicker guys that can survive playing on an island with no help.

And guys like Champ or Clements can do it all.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2007, 01:55 PM   #41
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 34
Posts: 8,217
Re: asante samuel

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemnseven View Post
I'm saying that I just don't think there's much to this notion that there are corners who are so lacking in run support abilities that they can't make it in this defense. They won't make it in ANY defense!!! Everybody has to know how to tackle. People who can't won't make it in football. It's my belief that when we all say, "oh, we don't need this cornerback, he can't tackle" -- that's fan-speak. If Gregg Williams' defense is so nuanced to the point that it can't work with prototypical corners, then there would be no cornerbacks on his roster -- there'd be nothing but strong safeties.

And just where is it written that Asante Samuel "can't make a tackle in the open field"? Do we have actual proof of this claim? Would Bill Belichick keep someone on his roster than can't make an open field tackle? Of course not.

That's why all this talk of cornerbacks like Asante Samuel not being suitable for this particular defense in the judgement of Warpathers is absolute nonsense.
I completely disagree with everything you've said regarding this CB run support issue.

Yes, every player must know how to tackle to play pee wee football. That doesn't mean they're all good at it at the NFL level.

And run support isn't always tackling in the open field. Sometimes it's having the speed to come up on a sweep to your side of the field, and take away the sideline, forcing the RB to cut up the field towards the swarm of LBs that's racing towards him. You don't have to make the tackle, but you have to either slow the RB down, or you have to redirect him back to the heart of the defense. That takes speed, recognition to quickly diagnose the play as a run to your side, and aggressiveness to willingly attack the ballcarrier and defend the sideline.

GW's defense is predicated on flexibility. We want our safeties to cover so that he can feel free to blitz corners sometimes. We want our LBs capable of covering a Jeremy Shockey just as well as they can tackle a Brandon Jacobs. We want our defensive linemen, especially the backups, to be capable of shifting from DE to DT.

And we need our corners to be capable of coming up and delivering a blow to RBs so that we can feel free to blitz our LBs or safeties, and still be able to prevent an RB from taking a screen pass to the house.

If you want flexibility to move your players around on the field and attack from unexpected angles, then you have to have versatile players. When the LBs are on a blitz and attacking the QB, there better be someone there who can do the LB's job when he's not there. Sean Taylor can't be everywhere, as good as he is. If you want to be a blitzing team, you need CBs that can hit.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2007, 02:02 PM   #42
Pro Bowl
 
Beemnseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Age: 40
Posts: 5,293
Re: Asante Samuel

Nope. Not buying it. Anyone who cannot tackle a ball carrier in the open field won't be in the NFL. I don't care how complex or nuanced a defense is.

If Asante Samuel is out of the question for this team because he's too expensive, fine. But if a guy who had 10 interceptions last year isn't being considered because he's not "right for our system", then that only further illustrates the buffoonery of this front office, and serves as more proof that Williams shouldn't be in the position of evaluating the talent that belongs on our roster.
Beemnseven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2007, 02:07 PM   #43
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 79,460
Re: Asante Samuel

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemnseven View Post
Nope. Not buying it. Anyone who cannot tackle a ball carrier in the open field won't be in the NFL. I don't care how complex or nuanced a defense is.
LOL, ok

How would you explain Deion then?
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2007, 02:32 PM   #44
Pro Bowl
 
Beemnseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Age: 40
Posts: 5,293
Re: Asante Samuel

So you're saying that even for the right price, Gregg Williams would pass up on a cornerback who can smother a wideout, even if his game isn't centered on stopping the run -- Darrell Green for example?

To paraphrase you:

"LOL ok"
Beemnseven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2007, 02:43 PM   #45
The Starter
 
#56fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Charlotte NC
Age: 39
Posts: 1,788
Re: Asante Samuel

If I recall - GW defense is based on pressure. His defense works better when he has corners that can cover one on one due to the blitzes both on run downs and passing downs. His defense is a version of the 46, which corners are asked to cover one on one a lot. I dont care if a corner can tackle or not, to me they shouldn't be making 10 tackles a game. RB's should not be cosistantly getting to that level like they were last year. the Safeties in this D are asked to be more flexible. Cover and run support. I am not buying the whole big , physical corner stuff. I will take a cover/shut down corner any day of the week.
#56fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.40445 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25