Is Asante worth 7.79 million a year?

[Mike the Brit]

Where was the "He's a very good cornerback whom it is worth retaining, given the absence of alternatives, even if we have to pay the franchise number" option?

 

[dhamz]

In the context of past years I would say no but with all the cap $ people have to spend, 7.79 will almost be a bargain for a corner of his caliber.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Where was the "He's a very good cornerback whom it is worth retaining, given the absence of alternatives, even if we have to pay the franchise number" option?

Ditto this.

I'm high on Randall Gay and I think he could sub in adequately for Samuel, but with Gay's injury history I wouldn't count on him being available. After Gay, there's nobody else I want playing Samuel's spot. For those that say "draft a rookie!", even Ty Law in 1995 wasn't the stud he was in later years and guys like Shawn Springs and Champ Bailey had bulls-eyes on them their rookie years. 2007 looks like a prime shot at a title and I'm not suggesting the Pats go Redskins in the market and spend like crazy, but they do need to face reality and spend top dollar for some talent. And they've done this in the past (Rosie Colvin), so it's not completely out of character. At least get Samuel in for the franchise number and try to work something out longer-term.

Regards,
Chris

 

[jeffd]

Randall Gay is a slot DB and that is it! He did terrible when asked to fill in over the wide out. I'd be comfortable with Hobbs and a decent rookie starting with Gay in the middle. Especially if Wilson and Rodney are healthy and we get some athletic LB's to get into passing lanes. I'm not saying give Asante away, but he's definately expendable at the right price.

 

[lobster]

Samuel is worth a big multi-year contract and will be offered such by the Pat's.

 

[CTPatsFan]

Ok, we all know that Asante had 12 Ints on the season (10 during the regular season and 2 in the play-offs). Of those 10 regular season ones, at least 5 were because of pressure on the QB and NOT because he beat out the WR for the ball.

Also, Asante is a lousy tackler. He goes for the show-boat hit too much and doesn't wrap up.

Now, don't get me wrong, he is a good CB. But I don't consider him to be GREAT or ELITE by any stretch of the imagination.

If there were a "Yes, if Belioli says he is." I'd go for that.

 

[Krugman]

I wouldnt say he is elite,but he is very good,and you need some good cb's if your going to win big games,IMO,so I hope he stays,even if they have to franchise him.Or we can watch him making picks against us in a Jets uniform....which is probably where he'll end up if we dont....

 

[sieglo]

We don't have enough info to whether Samuel is an elite CB. But if you franchise him and he puts up another 10 INTs next year, then the answer is yes. So of course you franchise him, even if is a relatively expensive way to maintain an option on that talent.

 

[Heck67]

The thing that makes him worth that money is he's been in the system, it took him a while to get it just like it will take another db quite a while, this constant turnover whether it be db's or receivers can't keep happening if we want to vie for another championship

 

[AzPatsFan]

My question still stands.

What else are the Patriots going to spend the $30 million CAP on, if not an emerging shut down CB?

I'd sign him lomg term at even this price but the reality is they can get him for just over $7 million/year with an appriopriate Signing Bonus.

 

[Maroney TD]

Asante is a stud and he comes up huge in the playoffs. Sign the man long term. He's still young so get the best years of his career before letting him go.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

He's been a regular starter for four years now. Granted, this is his contract year, and it seems as if he's reflecting that by making high-risk high-reward plays (i.e., interceptions.) Possibly he didn't trust his judgment as much in prior years, but figured he would take some chances since he was about to hit the market. Evidently, his reads at the NFL level are pretty good.

In 2005, Samuel notched 3 interceptions. This year 10. Passes defensed were almost identical, 14 vs. 13 (vs. 11 in 2004.) Tackles have steadily climbed from 34 to 64; so at least he's getting people that catch the ball around him.

Oddly enough, Champ Bailey, the new popular template for a "shutdown" corner, has made tackles in the 60s-80s range the last few years, or an average of 4-6 per game depending on the year. Anybody that tells you nobody gets the ball on Bailey's side of the field is just lying to you. He just hits them when they do get the ball... a far cry from the "shutdown corner" who refuses to tackle (because...well, why would he have to?) Of course, Bailey has four years with five or more interceptions; Samuel has 1.

At the very least, the franchise tag allows us to see whether 2006 is the reality or the aberration for Samuel. I'm more of a mind to franchise and trade, but I have no idea of BB/SP's valuation of Samuel's play. If there is a magic observation, an "it" that Samuel has, that announces to a Belichickian/Piolian mind that the level of play will hold steady or increase, then we will know soon enough. Regardless, he is not in the Brady category, and nobody will pay "game-changing" money for good play with potential for great. I'm afraid that in the world of Cornerbacks, that type of money is not unheard of even for "good" players.

Again, I want to emphasize that in this era of cap inflation, franchising is mathmatically a better option than it has been in the past. "Top 5s" are still working on deals cut prior to a $20M influx last year in many cases. All "Top 5s" are working on deals prior to the $7M increase this year. The average rate of increase was much lower from 2000-2005, than it is now (especially the 2006 windfall.)

Since that rate of increase is higher, the value of the "trailing indicator" (the "Top 5") is inherently better (i.e., lower versus new deal market rates), than it has ever been.

PFnV

 

[carolinatony]

Pay him.
After last year with Branch players are watching us. If they think.. the Pats' won't pay big money for a good players it "could" come back and bite us in the future.
He earned it this year imo.

 

[3 to be 4]

franchise him. Do not lose your head and go away from the formula that has worked. Draft a CB as well.
thats how they got Samuel to begin with. Laws contract was coming up so they drafted Wislon and Samuel.

 

[ATippett56]

At the very least, the franchise tag allows us to see whether 2006 is the reality or the aberration for Samuel.PFnV

This is best solution for the New England Patriots for the 2007 NFL season.

 

[Patriots4Ever]

I think it is absolutely necessary that we Re-Sign Samuel,We tend to forget that this team is getting older.We are already hearing talk that Guys Like Dillion and Bruschi may retire this off-season.There was a time that we would stock up with elite players.We must be honest with ourselves and admit that many of these Elite's for us are nearing the end of the road.See the Above mentioned sentence.There is not too many Top Tier CB's coming up in FA,and Its too soon to predict us spending a first rounder for one in the Draft.I say PAY HIM and get his ass back onto the team..

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I agree with "Pay him." The question is, how much?

You can bet the Pats' approach will not be to open the checkbook, and ask Asante to write in his favorite large number.

Since Samuel's agent is already publicly stating that he doesn't want to be jacked around with a franchise tag as a stalling action, it seems obvious that "Get Paid," to Asante Samuel, means "Get Paid a Lot." Well, we'll find out what "a lot" means to him in the coming seasons. But "A lot" will likely compare favorably on a year by year basis, with the 7.79M of the franchise tag.

The key determinant, of course, will not be the average yearly salary, but the up-front and guaranteed money, since a team can just cut a guy with a ballooning back-loaded contract.

Front-loading a deal creates risk for the team: risk that he'll underperform his contract, risk that he'll get injured and never really recover, in short, risk of any outcome less to the team's liking than his current high level of play.

Back-loading the deal shifts the risk to the player.

Obviously, most deals are a combination. In addition, to provide incentives, and also to distribute some risk evenly, incentive clauses can be worked in so the player gets an escalator for a certain level of performance. Okay, Asante, you think you're suddenly a 10 INT per year guy? Why don't you get 700K of your salary in increments of $100K for every INT over 3? (That might be a bad example, of course, depending on whether prevention of negative outcomes is really the goal in BB's use of a corner, or whether he wants to incentivize ballhawking.)

It'll be interesting to see what terms are batted around, but I think Samuel sees himself as a player of the Brady/Seymour caliber, who command "special" salaries on the NE club. The club sees him as a good player, but one that can be parted with. Look around at some of the guys who have been here since 2001 -- Bruschi's a great example. His actual compensation is out of whack with his contribution (he takes a huge home town discount. I think his last deal [in 2004] was for 8.1M over 4 years.) Other linebackers are out there making 6 and 7 million per year. Guys who stay that long are willing to eschew the truly big money to stay on the NE Patriots "ride." Seau was willing to play for league veteran minimum for a shot at the bling.

So anyhoo -- we can not demand or expect that behavior, especially from a new guy. This is why I think Samuel and his agent consider the real money to be elsewhere, and his tattoo and agent's statements lead me to believe that he wants the "real" money.

Well, that's part of the model: Very few "superstar" contracts, but a big middle class. Is Samuel "middle class"? I think so. Samuel probably does not.

Franchise it is.*

PFnV

*unless it's not. Let's face it, we never know what these guys are gonna do.

 

[shirtsleeve]

He's been a regular starter for four years now. Granted, this is his contract year, and it seems as if he's reflecting that by making high-risk high-reward plays (i.e., interceptions.) Possibly he didn't trust his judgment as much in prior years, but figured he would take some chances since he was about to hit the market. Evidently, his reads at the NFL level are pretty good.

In 2005, Samuel notched 3 interceptions. This year 10. Passes defensed were almost identical, 14 vs. 13 (vs. 11 in 2004.) Tackles have steadily climbed from 34 to 64; so at least he's getting people that catch the ball around him.

Oddly enough, Champ Bailey, the new popular template for a "shutdown" corner, has made tackles in the 60s-80s range the last few years, or an average of 4-6 per game depending on the year. Anybody that tells you nobody gets the ball on Bailey's side of the field is just lying to you. He just hits them when they do get the ball... a far cry from the "shutdown corner" who refuses to tackle (because...well, why would he have to?) Of course, Bailey has four years with five or more interceptions; Samuel has 1.

At the very least, the franchise tag allows us to see whether 2006 is the reality or the aberration for Samuel. I'm more of a mind to franchise and trade, but I have no idea of BB/SP's valuation of Samuel's play. If there is a magic observation, an "it" that Samuel has, that announces to a Belichickian/Piolian mind that the level of play will hold steady or increase, then we will know soon enough. Regardless, he is not in the Brady category, and nobody will pay "game-changing" money for good play with potential for great. I'm afraid that in the world of Cornerbacks, that type of money is not unheard of even for "good" players.

Again, I want to emphasize that in this era of cap inflation, franchising is mathmatically a better option than it has been in the past. "Top 5s" are still working on deals cut prior to a $20M influx last year in many cases. All "Top 5s" are working on deals prior to the $7M increase this year. The average rate of increase was much lower from 2000-2005, than it is now (especially the 2006 windfall.)

Since that rate of increase is higher, the value of the "trailing indicator" (the "Top 5") is inherently better (i.e., lower versus new deal market rates), than it has ever been.

PFnV

:woohoo:

Someone with stats! Where'd you get them? What % of passing downs was he thrown at each year? These are the telling stats. For instance, the 14 vs 13 passes defensed, is that in addition to the ints? Because that would make a total of 24 negative plays by the offense against Asante compared to 16 last year....now how does that compare to the # of times he was thrown at? And tackles going up from the 30s to the 60s.... was that over 4 years or two?

But in light of the funny money, a tag value will not represent top 5 salary any more. So it could be the smart financial move.

Nice post PFnV!

 

[PatsFanInVa]

:woohoo:

Someone with stats! Where'd you get them? What % of passing downs was he thrown at each year? These are the telling stats. For instance, the 14 vs 13 passes defensed, is that in addition to the ints? Because that would make a total of 24 negative plays by the offense against Asante compared to 16 last year....now how does that compare to the # of times he was thrown at? And tackles going up from the 30s to the 60s.... was that over 4 years or two?

But in light of the funny money, a tag value will not represent top 5 salary any more. So it could be the smart financial move.

Nice post PFnV!

The 30s-to-60s was over 4 years, and it's almost a straight line, more each year.

I used the easy stats, from NFL.com, which are misleading, because I don't know:

- playing time (although games started are close to constant, except his first year, where I believe he started 13 instead of 15 or 16)

- times thrown at (I am not sure where you would get his one... every time I use football outsiders I get knotted up in a thicket of their "DVOA methodology..." so I do stick to the easy to get stuff, despite the limitations.)

And yes, the passes defensed means passes batted down or if there is another way to defense a pass without an INT or a tackle, doing that thing. Making the pass incomplete. (I think it's knock-downs, pure and simple.) Samuel's consistent in his numbers there, and they're in the range of what Bailey achieves on the knockdowns level (although Champ spiked at 19 one year.)

CBs are really hard to quantify, outside of film study, because beyond those two relatively rare stats (about 3 knockdowns every 4 games, 2 INTs every 3 games,) we don't know much about what good things are happening when he is on the field. "Times thrown at" might be out there somewhere, but I don't know where to find it. Really a CB makes things not happen... and not all coverage is even man coverage. Only a coach knows whether it was him or the other guy in some cases. But he was the most successful part of a very successful D against passing TDs (read some stats in USA Today at the end of season, cannot repeat off top of my head,) regardless of yards allowed.

For that reason, I'm a little loath to say "he's good not great," because for all I know when BB sits down and watches the tape, he says "holy crap I need to keep this guy," and it's based on intangibles, or things only the great football mind sees. I freely admit I wish I had the knowledge to break down game tape, but I just don't. It does seem to me, however, that if Law didn't cross that "great" threshold for BB, it's unlikely Samuel will (especially given the attitude we're seeing.)

Thanks for the kind words,

PFnV

 

[shirtsleeve]

The 30s-to-60s was over 4 years, and it's almost a straight line, more each year....

And yes, the passes defensed means passes batted down or if there is another way to defense a pass without an INT or a tackle, doing that thing. Making the pass incomplete. (I think it's knock-downs, pure and simple.) Samuel's consistent in his numbers there, and they're in the range of what Bailey achieves on the knockdowns level (although Champ spiked at 19 one year.)


For that reason, I'm a little loath to say "he's good not great," because for all I know when BB sits down and watches the tape, he says "holy crap I need to keep this guy," and it's based on intangibles, or things only the great football mind sees. I freely admit I wish I had the knowledge to break down game tape, but I just don't. It does seem to me, however, that if Law didn't cross that "great" threshold for BB, it's unlikely Samuel will (especially given the attitude we're seeing.)

Thanks for the kind words,

PFnV

Ok, so from what we have seen, what we can determine is Asante is a very good, at least, young corner, who seems to be immune from the injury bug, who is steadily improving in all areas of his game (remember the drops he used to have which are now picks?), who now has numbers that indicate he is at least a solid #1`corner(and its important to understand that this has been a slow steady improvement, not a flash in the contract pan), and is an UFA in the biggest funny money year in history...tag the kid! Tag money is probably going to be pretty conservative in this market.