Warpath  

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




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Skins interested in Gallery?/Samuels trade talks *Merged*

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-10-2004, 03:34 AM   #16
Playmaker
 
skinsfanthru&thru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 34
Posts: 3,743
in the story by the washington post it didn't make any mention of the Redskins trading the #5 overall pick with samuels, it just says samuels may be traded. Samuels is still a young tackle with probowl talent and he's got quite a bit of trade value in him. If we can trade both him and Gardner(filling two holes for the raiders), why not trade them(plus a future pick or 2 if needed) to the raiders for the #2 pick, draft gallery, and still use our #5 pick to select taylor, Winslow, or trade down for d-line help. This would free up a tremendous amount of future cap space and give us a player who is probably a better tackle than Samuels and cheaper and younger. With Samuels and Gardner traded and with the cutting of trotter, moore, and trung, would we have the room to sign both(or all our picks if we trade down)? I've liked Samuels but his cap #'s are way too high and if we can replace him with a better player for less money and still keep our pick, why not do this? plus hasn't bugel been drooling over Gallery this spring? Man I can't wait until next saturday.

Last edited by skinsfanthru&thru; 04-10-2004 at 03:42 AM.
skinsfanthru&thru is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 04-10-2004, 09:55 AM   #17
Camp Scrub
 
juggernaunt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 47
i love it

i love the idea of trading samuels to either oakland or cleveland. just hope recoop a 1st in the process... like samuels to cleveland for their 1st and 3rd. or 1st n gardner to oakland.... love it
juggernaunt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2004, 10:58 AM   #18
Impact Rookie
 
skins009's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 528
Lets remember one thing about Samuels constract, its mostly the fault of the redskins front office. He has already restructred his contract twice, and he's only been in the league for three years. Thats excactly why is cap numbers are so high now. This is just another example of Synders inability to manage the cap. With all this said, I think Samuels needs to be given a chance to play under a real coach and blocking system. As a rookie under Marty he was outstanding, in a position where is is traditionally very difficult to step in and play as a rookie. I think the FO should forget about Gallery and focus in the Deffense. I also think we should be trying to get something it terms of draft picks for Trotter and most importantly Gardner. Somebody should be willing to pick them up.
skins009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2004, 11:16 AM   #19
Puppy Kicker
 
Daseal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Age: 31
Posts: 8,238
Skins, if he wants a chance to play under a "real coach" as you put it, then he better play like he deserves some sort of recognition. You know what, bad blocking schemes or not, he still got beat by his man, a lot. He was letting sacks by, Jansen wasn't!

He needs to get paid at the callibre of game he's playing. League minimum!

Restructure or get the hell outta town. I don't think we should draft Gallery though. He's be an excellent way to bait a really favorable tradedown. But then we have the chance of losing Taylor to the Lions. Who knows!
Daseal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2004, 01:33 PM   #20
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsfanthru&thru
in the story by the washington post it didn't make any mention of the Redskins trading the #5 overall pick with samuels, it just says samuels may be traded. Samuels is still a young tackle with probowl talent and he's got quite a bit of trade value in him. If we can trade both him and Gardner(filling two holes for the raiders), why not trade them(plus a future pick or 2 if needed) to the raiders for the #2 pick, draft gallery, and still use our #5 pick to select taylor, Winslow, or trade down for d-line help. This would free up a tremendous amount of future cap space and give us a player who is probably a better tackle than Samuels and cheaper and younger. With Samuels and Gardner traded and with the cutting of trotter, moore, and trung, would we have the room to sign both(or all our picks if we trade down)? I've liked Samuels but his cap #'s are way too high and if we can replace him with a better player for less money and still keep our pick, why not do this? plus hasn't bugel been drooling over Gallery this spring? Man I can't wait until next saturday.
So if we keep the 5th (maybe get Taylor!), add Gallery and save money by letting Samuels go I suppose I could live with that. However, Samuels, while he's not been the same player the last couple of years, is a proven NFL pro-bowl player. With poor protection schemes, injuries, and having to play next to a rookie for much of last year the past two seasons have not been great for SAmuels. But what has Gallery done in the NFL? I'd hate for the Skins to get him and then a couple of years later hear Gallery and Tony Mandarich mentioned in the same sentence.
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2004, 01:58 PM   #21
The Starter
 
Hail to the Redskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,558
I might be the only one who thinks this....

But Samuels and Garnder together would be worth the 2nd pick to the Raiders... no need for a pick from next year.

They need a Reciever opposite Porter to replace Rice and Brown... and they desperately need OL help...

Just a straight up, Samuels and Gardner for the #2 seems fair enough. Both have Pro-Bowl talent. If adding anything... make it Trotter, and grab a 4th rounder from them too...

Then, we'd have Gallery at #2 (a BEAST that is younger, smarter, and a harder worker than Samuels), Taylor at #5 for the D AND cap space freedom the next 2 years... then we'd be looking GOOD for a FEW of years... not just one
__________________
“Sometimes it is not enough to our best; we must do what is required.”
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Hail to the Redskins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2004, 03:33 PM   #22
Playmaker
 
skinsfanthru&thru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 34
Posts: 3,743
this deal makes sense also with the reasoning of why not get something for samuels because we know there isn't much chance of him restructuring his deal this year or next and would likely be cut because of that next year. This provides us an oppurtunity to replace him with an awesome tackle for a lower salary and thus a better chance to also resign smoot next year or sometime this year. And I agree Hail_to_the_Redskins, the trade of Gardner and Samuels is a straight up fair trade if not more in favor of the Raiders. I mean that's practically trading a high first round and a decent 2nd round pick for one high first rounder. Maybe we could even get a 3rd or 4th round pick to come our way out of this as well. If this deal does have our 1st round pick involved then I say no deal, but from what the report read and the talent on the table, I don't think our 1st rounder will come into the picture.
skinsfanthru&thru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2004, 03:42 PM   #23
Playmaker
 
skinsfanthru&thru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 34
Posts: 3,743
plus remember gallery's importance when Ramsey is the starting QB again and is needed to guard the blind side.
skinsfanthru&thru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2004, 06:01 PM   #24
Camp Scrub
 
mizzo skins man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: St. Joseph Missouri
Age: 38
Posts: 83
I'm an Iowa fan, and Gallery is awesome, but what the skins need to do if anything is draft down. If they draft down they can get somebody like Udeze or T. Harris and a later round draft pick.
mizzo skins man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2004, 06:01 PM   #25
Camp Scrub
 
GibbssbbiG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth, Milky Way
Posts: 35
Angry FO is Extremely Idiotic 2 trade away Samuel now

IMHO: the FO (Gibbs + Danny JB + BN Cerrato) are Extremely Idiotic to trade away Samuel.

What we should trade is the slow-footed Jansen, then draft Gallery. Jansen has been outmaneuvered by faster DE time & time again. Remember if Brunell starts, then Jansen is the blindside protector.

But then again this FO (Gibbs + Danny JB + BN Cerrato) has been making some idiotic moves such as throwing away the all importance Draft-Picks, such as (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th)-rounds, as if they are leper.

Keep in mind,
1.} this 2004 Bumper_crop_Draft is deep & loaded with talents.
2.} Redskins 2003 players had been under performing under Spurier_Inferior-Coaching-Staffs, thus Redskins 2003 players trade values are not as high as they should be.

3.} Most of 2004 available Cap space has been eaten by Brunell & Portis.
4.} FP should keep the talented players for 1 more year to raise their trade values.

5.} I thought I heard Samuel said he is excited & wants to be the Gibbs—Redskins core player for years to come, in time Samuel will be willing to Re-structure his contract again for the 3rd—TIME.
6.} The short-sighted tendency of FO (Gibbs + Danny JB + BN Cerrato) in win now lose later mentality.

The top notch Front Office must be able to anticipate an upcoming Bumper_crop_Draft and stock-piles draft-picks like Belichick-Patriot.
GibbssbbiG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2004, 06:56 PM   #26
Playmaker
 
skinsfanthru&thru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 34
Posts: 3,743
I'd take Jansen any day of the week over Samuels and I've seen samuels beaten more than I have Jansen. As well as that Jansen hasn't missed a start has he? while recently Samuels has had ankle problems as well as shoulder or chest problems didn't he? Jansen has been the most consistently good lineman we've had in years.
skinsfanthru&thru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2004, 07:06 PM   #27
Playmaker
 
Defensewins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hail to the Redskins
I might be the only one who thinks this....

But Samuels and Garnder together would be worth the 2nd pick to the Raiders... no need for a pick from next year.
This makes sense to you because you are a Redskins fan. Come on man!
If you were the Raiders would you trade the #2 pick for Samuels (and his crazy 2004 salary), Gardner and even Trotter? Of course not.
You have to offer something good in this years deep and talented 2004 draft as well. The Raiders will not bite unless you throw in a semi-decent first round pick. The #5 pick is too much, but they will want something in the 10-18 range ...
Also remember Al Davis was burned by the Redskins in the Jay Schroeder for Jim Lachey trade. That had to be the worst trade ever for the Raiders and Al Davis. Al Davis may not want to trade Gallery to the Redskins and have him become another Jim Lachey.

Last edited by Defensewins; 04-10-2004 at 07:10 PM.
Defensewins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2004, 07:10 PM   #28
Playmaker
 
BrudLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Rehoboth Beach, DE
Posts: 3,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defensewins
This makes sense to you because you are a Redskins fan. Come on man!
If you were the Raiders would you trade the #2 pick for Samuels (and his crazy 2004 salary), Gardner and even Trotter? Of course not.
You have to offer something good in this years deep and talented 2004 draft as well. The Raiders will not bite unless you throw in a decent first rong pick. The #5 pick is too much, but they will want something ...
Also remember Al Davis was burned by the Redskins in the Jay Schroeder for Jim Lachey trade. That had to be the worst trade ever for the Raiders and Al Davis. Al Davis may not want to trade Gallery to the Redskins and have him become another Jim Lachey.
Unless Chris Samuels becomes Jim Lachey - then the circle of life is complete.
__________________
There's nowhere to go but up. Or down. I guess we could stay where we are, too.
BrudLee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2004, 07:14 PM   #29
Playmaker
 
Defensewins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrudLee
Unless Chris Samuels becomes Jim Lachey - then the circle of life is complete.
You are old enough to have seen Jim Lachey play. There is no way Samuels will ever be as good as Jim Lachey. They are both excellent pass blockers, but Lachey is twice the run blocker Samuels is or will ever be. With all the amazing physical tools Samuels has been blessed with, I have never seen Samules get angry and pancake someone. He just kind of plays good enough to get by.
Defensewins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2004, 07:24 PM   #30
Playmaker
 
BrudLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Rehoboth Beach, DE
Posts: 3,494
Agreed Defensewins, but that was one of the reasons Lachey made it to Washington. Al Davis didn't want an offensive line built for running, he wanted the long ball. He thought he could fill the slot with a technician that could buy Schrader the time to go deep. If the Raiders are looking for a pass blocker, then a deal makes more sense for them, since (last season not withstanding), Samuels is a great pass blocker.
__________________
There's nowhere to go but up. Or down. I guess we could stay where we are, too.
BrudLee 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 09:13 PM.


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 0.30140 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