Brandon Winey as a starter
 

Assuming Samuels doesnt rework his contract, which seems like it may be the case, and since he has so much trade value, what do you guys think about getting a first round pick for Sameuls, getting the cap room to mabye pick up some other post June 1st free agents, and startign Winey.

It seems like a huge downgrade on paper but when I watched him last year he played well. He stepped in for Samuels and in my opinion played better. The QB had much better protection when he was playing.

Mabye this was because the blockign patterns were changed at the end, but still, he did his job when Samuels didnt.

What do you guys think.

Winey is a good player and did what a back up should do, he came in and there wasn't a drop-off. Even though Samuels hasn't played like it the past year or two, due to the Spurrier/Helton no-protection passing scheme, he is a pro bowl caliber player....Winey isn't. They just need to find a way to get it done.

[QUOTE=SKINSnCANES]Assuming Samuels doesnt rework his contract, which seems like it may be the case, and since he has so much trade value, what do you guys think about getting a first round pick for Sameuls, getting the cap room to mabye pick up some other post June 1st free agents, and startign Winey.

It seems like a huge downgrade on paper but when I watched him last year he played well. He stepped in for Samuels and in my opinion played better. The QB had much better protection when he was playing.

Mabye this was because the blockign patterns were changed at the end, but still, he did his job when Samuels didnt.

What do you guys think.[/QUOTE]

Well I agree with you that he out played Samuel's, but I would have to see more of him before I relied on him to be my starting right tackle, but we might be able to get a guy like andrew's later in the draft to groom and step in for winey if he can't get the job done for a lot less money, if we believe we can keep him motivated and get him in the weight room.

Well if Brunell starts then Winey playing as left tackle isnt the blindside tackle. Which puts the bigger job on Jansens shoulders, who is a solid enough tackle to handle that. I dont want to see Samuels leave but I dont think we would be as devistated as most people think.

A recent Washington Times piece said that Samuels was willing to try to restructure his contract any way he could to help make his cap numbers more manageable, but that he just didn't want to sign an extension yet with two years left on his current contract. Not being a cap expert like some (Canucks) around here, I'm not sure what kind of restructuring can be done without extending the contract, but I have to say that the article made Samuels look quite decent and reasonable, even indicating he might be willing to sign an extension next year.

--Phin

Next year is to late, we need cap relief this year. I don't blame this on Samules, it is really Snyder and Cerrato's fault for mismanaging our cap. But Samules is not playing up to his $8M salary cap number that he is going to count this year.
Since Brunnell is a lefty, we should seriously consider shipping Samuels out for a mid to high 1st round draft pick and start Winey. But not give up the #5 pick! It would be stupid to give Samuels and the #5 pick for the #2 pick.
Another point in considering Winey... in Gibbs first year as coach in 1981 or 1982, he started an undrafted rookie Joe Jacoby and Bugel molded him into a Hall of Famer. Winey at least already has a couple of starts under his bealt, where as Jacoby was an undrafted rookie..

The only type of restructuring that would help would be an extension.

I don't understand Samuels logic. He says he won't restructure now, but might do so next year?

Let's fast forward to one year from now:

Samuels's 2005 cap hit will be $9.6M. His salary for 2005 will be $6M.

If he has a good year in 2004, he will be in the driver's seat and will be able to demand more from the Skins in any extension. Plus he'll know that if the Skins cut him he can find a good offer elsewhere, probably with a nice signing bonus.

If he has a bad year in 2004, then he will likely not want to restructure either since he'll be due $6M in salary in 2005, and any restructure or new deal would probably want to pay him less.

So I don't really see his logic when he says he might restructure next year. He might be trying look better in the public's eyes.

So the way I see it, Samuels either restructures now or he's gone for sure in 2005.

If he's gone for sure in 2005, then we should definitely look to unload him now for a high draft pick.

He said he would redo his deal but didnt want an extension. Does that mean he will take a new, two year contract and pay cut? So he only wants a two year deal for less money. Is a player acutally admitting hes overpaid?

The other thign to keep in mind that I dont know much about Winey is his run blocking. We've got a great back that would benefit from a great oline

Excellent points, Canuck.

I'm okay with dealing Samuels before the draft-- I just don't want to see him packaged with the #5 pick. The Skins have more leverage and value with that pick than with any player they might consider trading away. If they deal Samuels for more players or picks (preferably mid-first round at minimum for one pick), while retaining their #5 pick, that would be fine.
Don't get me wrong; it's not going to be easy to replace Samuels. I really believe he's going to return to Pro Bowl form under Bugel's guidance. But if he's not willing to restructure now, then the time to deal him is now.

Theres no way we would get a first round for samuels the way he our quarterbacks have been getting killed. He has not done well under the spurrier regime with offsides and sub par blocking. I would be surprised to get a second for him, but I would rather keep Samuels and let bugel at him.

[QUOTE=joecrisp]Excellent points, Canuck.

I'm okay with dealing Samuels before the draft-- I just don't want to see him packaged with the #5 pick. The Skins have more leverage and value with that pick than with any player they might consider trading away. If they deal Samuels for more players or picks (preferably mid-first round at minimum for one pick), while retaining their #5 pick, that would be fine.
Don't get me wrong; it's not going to be easy to replace Samuels. I really believe he's going to return to Pro Bowl form under Bugel's guidance. But if he's not willing to restructure now, then the time to deal him is now.[/QUOTE]

I think Crisp pretty much hits the nail on the head here. But I don't think we should be jumping on the Winey bandwagon just yet. He's a solid player but I can't see him being better than a healthy Samuels. I think it's important to remember that Winey joined the lineup right around the time Dockery was starting to find his groove. Samuels had to help compensate for a lot of Dockery's early rookie mistakes.

He was the third overall pick, why are we surprised at these numbers? Even if we think he didin't earn every dollar last season, dumping him for anything less than the third overall pick is insanity. Just be glad he is not Courtney Brown.

I think under Bugel our whole line will take a step up. Our guard next to Samuels/Winey is going to be suspect anyways. Either Fiore is going to give this another go around or we go with Dockery again. I sure hope Dockery did a lot of work this offseason becasue he lost some games for us. I think he should just take a paycut, leave the deal at two years and let him have a chance to prove himself. If i was him i wouldnt want a longterm deal becuase he should be able to play at a higher level and should want to prove that to get the big dollars again.

I agree with Crisp as well.

Losing Samuels would hurt us in 2004, but from all indications the Skins are on a 3 year plan. No point keeping Samuels for 2004 if we're gonna lose him in 2005 anyways.

We have assembled a great core of young guys that we can keep thru 2006 and beyond. Samuels should extend his contract to become a part of this core, or we should try to unload him.

The Skins gotta find a way to turn Samuels into Gallery without giving up the #5.

Come on Samuels, rework the deal so we can keep you and get KWII and Taylor.

[QUOTE=SKINSnCANES]He said he would redo his deal but didnt want an extension. Does that mean he will take a new, two year contract and pay cut?[/QUOTE]

Restructuring without an extension does nothing for us. There's too much accumulated signing bonus remaining on his contract. An extension would be the only way to get short-term cap relief, by pushing more money to future years.

The extension would have to have a small signing bonus though. It would have to give him the 20 million he should get in the next two years, over 4 or 5. If we give him another big deal we'll be in the same cap hell down the road again. We're going to have to take a big hit when we cut Brunell in two or three years to.

Let me remind all of you again that I don't read minds so I can't be positive about why Samuels has not reworked his deal.

I SUSPECT that he has lost some measure of faith in the team to come up with the money in his "big payoff" years when they actually come due. He has already redone his deal at least once - and maybe twice - with some minor tweaking to let the Skins survive previous cap problems. He has seen teammates not get the big money years at the ends of their deals. He has seen one teammate with an incentive loaded deal pushed back to a point where it is far less likely that he will earn those incentives. And so he says to himself, why do this again? Why not take the money that "they" owe "me"?

From his perspective, he is going to have to take a really low salary number this year and maybe next in order to get a bonus that makes his deal cap friendly. That means he is deferring the current salary AND the potential signing bonus he would get just by playing out his deal and going into the open market. If you add his salaries together and then add in a potential signing bonus for a solid OT who may not make the Hall of Fame but who can play at the NFL level, you are probably in the range of a $15-18M signing bonus right now. And to make that deal cap friendly, he has to make that at least a 6 year deal and maybe 8.

And maybe he's not ready to commit to that just yet - since maybe he thinks the Redskins aren't committed to him just yet.

Samuel's seem's like a real quality guy as a person, and I would like to see him play under bugel, but he has to step up and rework his contract, it's not like we are asking him to take a pay cut after 2 pro-bowl year's, he has defiently under achieved and should consider this with a restructuring of his contract, he's being paid a lot of money to play a game, and he's a multi millionaire, I think he has to take this into account if he want's to do everything he can to help the team win, it's not like snyder is a penny pincher, he takes care of his own, hopefully he will come around.

I do think Samuels deserves another chance. Hes already a proven talent, that had two bad years under different coaching systems. our team has been through a lot with all of these different coachs and i think we should think twice before lettign anyone go. Mabye even Trotter... That isnt meant to start another Trotter thread, we all knwo he isnt the best in coverage, but we did have coachs that played him in coverage when he shouldnt have been. A good coach knows where his strengts are and plays to them. Ive seen Lavar play coverage and hes broken up a bunch of passes, it should have been his job more than Trotters. Trotter should have been a blitzer