ESPN Insider: Samuel NFL's worst tackler

capetide said:

Hey, it's not like I sift through the trash outside his house every night. Just weekends.

Click to expand...

Or vandalize his house like Buffalo fans did to McKelvin.

Spiral said:

Actually, I think Hobbs is capable of doing that all by himself.

Asante isn't much of a tackler--neither was Deion Sanders.

Click to expand...

fierce said:

I can believe you typed this, but I can't believe you hit submit...

Click to expand...

Not sure what part of this you have a problem with. I'm not comparing Samuel to Sanders. My point is that tackling ability for cornerbacks is about as important as blocking ability is for a wide receiver. I'm not saying that it's irrelevant. But the fact that Deion Sanders was a lousy tackler isn't going to keep him out of the hall of fame, just as the fact that Randy Moss is a lousy blocker isn't going to keep him out of Canton either.

Spiral said:

Not sure what part of this you have a problem with. I'm not comparing Samuel to Sanders. My point is that tackling ability for cornerbacks is about as important as blocking ability is for a wide receiver. I'm not saying that it's irrelevant. But the fact that Deion Sanders was a lousy tackler isn't going to keep him out of the hall of fame, just as the fact that Randy Moss is a lousy blocker isn't going to keep him out of Canton either.

Click to expand...

Randy Moss is actually a pretty good blocker for a WR.. So is Wes Welker.. Deion Sanders tackling ability is being understated by you. In fact, you are besmirching Deion with the comparison. Samuel makes Deion look like Tedy Bruschi...

DaBruinz said:

Randy Moss is actually a pretty good blocker for a WR.. So is Wes Welker.. Deion Sanders tackling ability is being understated by you. In fact, you are besmirching Deion with the comparison. Samuel makes Deion look like Tedy Bruschi...

Click to expand...

Moss was not a particularly good blocker until he came here. As for the comparison, neither liked to tackle. It's actually extremely well known that Sanders didn't like to tackle. I also wish that someone had the game tape from YouTube to show the game back in the mid-90's where Sanders was actually in the position to make a tackle on a bigger receiver (maybe a TE if I can remember correctly) and actually MOVED OUT OF THE WAY. Samuel is a terrible tackler, but I've never seen him move out of the way of an oncoming receiver. As for your last sentence, the highest amount of tackles that Sanders logged in a single year was 66. Samuel's career high for a single season is 64.

I thought this was a 3 month old thread.

Spiral said:

Not sure what part of this you have a problem with. I'm not comparing Samuel to Sanders. My point is that tackling ability for cornerbacks is about as important as blocking ability is for a wide receiver. I'm not saying that it's irrelevant. But the fact that Deion Sanders was a lousy tackler isn't going to keep him out of the hall of fame, just as the fact that Randy Moss is a lousy blocker isn't going to keep him out of Canton either.

Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you, but Deion Sanders was the only NFL player in history who had such off-the chart talent that he could get away with not tackling. To mention Asante in the same sentence as Deion is a joke.

Some of the comments in this thread are absolutely killing me. there are actually people who think that being a good tackler isn't necessarily a very basic requirement of being an NFL player? Are you kidding me?

KontradictioN said:

Yes. I've heard that every NFL player has at least one flaw in their game as well.

Click to expand...

You must be a holy terror at flag football.

Spiral said:

Not sure what part of this you have a problem with. I'm not comparing Samuel to Sanders. My point is that tackling ability for cornerbacks is about as important as blocking ability is for a wide receiver. I'm not saying that it's irrelevant. But the fact that Deion Sanders was a lousy tackler isn't going to keep him out of the hall of fame, just as the fact that Randy Moss is a lousy blocker isn't going to keep him out of Canton either.

Click to expand...

JMarr said:

Hate to break it to you, but Deion Sanders was the only NFL player in history who had such off-the chart talent that he could get away with not tackling. To mention Asante in the same sentence as Deion is a joke.

Some of the comments in this thread are absolutely killing me. there are actually people who think that being a good tackler isn't necessarily a very basic requirement of being an NFL player? Are you kidding me?

Click to expand...

At the risk of being too argumentative, please do yourself a favor: don't quote someone and then make a comment that clearly indicates that you haven't even read the quote. Suggest you read the part that says "I'm not comparing Samuel to Sanders." Then read the part where it says "I'm not saying it's irrelevant."

JMarr said:

You must be a holy terror at flag football.

Click to expand...

I never played flag football. And what the hell does this even mean in response to what I said?

First of all, once again ESPN is about 3 weeks late on this story, since its already been discussed. Second of all, its NOT news. This was ONE of the reasons the Pats didn't make the elite offer to Assante. He has ALWAYS had holes in his game, and the Pats refused to pay him to be an all arouind elite CB, when he wasn't.

But to give the "devil his due" he IS a great playmaker, and can be counted on to make "plays" throughout the season. He is one of the best CBs in the league in zone coverage. HOWEVER his tackling is poor and his press coverage skills are average.

BB was aware of these pluses and minuses when the decision had to made on the value of his contract. The fact that it has taken a few seasons to adequately replace Samuel, doesn't diminish the bigger picture, that BB made the right decision what the Patriots could afford to pay him....and why. Its just taken THIS long for the rest of us to catch up.

patfanken said:

First of all, once again ESPN is about 3 weeks late on this story, since its already been discussed. Second of all, its NOT news. This was ONE of the reasons the Pats didn't make the elite offer to Assante. He has ALWAYS had holes in his game, and the Pats refused to pay him to be an all arouind elite CB, when he wasn't.

But to give the "devil his due" he IS a great playmaker, and can be counted on to make "plays" throughout the season. He is one of the best CBs in the league in zone coverage. HOWEVER his tackling is poor and his press coverage skills are average.

BB was aware of these pluses and minuses when the decision had to made on the value of his contract. The fact that it has taken a few seasons to adequately replace Samuel, doesn't diminish the bigger picture, that BB made the right decision what the Patriots could afford to pay him....and why. Its just taken THIS long for the rest of us to catch up.

Click to expand...

The Patriots franchised Samuel. That's clearly "elite" money. Furthermore, the gaping hole left by Samuel's absence, and the subsequent machinations attempting to fill that hole, have combined to help doom 2 seasons. That doesn't demonstrate that BB made the right decision at all. It tends to show just the opposite.

I'm not one to lament the loss of Samuel as if Samuel was a top 3 CB, since I didn't consider him to be in the top of the class even when he was with the Patriots, but part of letting players go is finding suitable replacements. The utter failure there absolutely opens up the Samuel decisions to question.

Deus Irae said:

The Patriots franchised Samuel. That's clearly "elite" money. Furthermore, the gaping hole left by Samuel's absence, and the subsequent machinations attempting to fill that hole, have combined to help doom 2 seasons. That doesn't demonstrate that BB made the right decision at all. It tends to show just the opposite.

I'm not one to lament the loss of Samuel as if Samuel was a top 3 CB, since I didn't consider him to be in the top of the class even when he was with the Patriots, but part of letting players go is finding suitable replacements. The utter failure there absolutely opens up the Samuel decisions to question.

Click to expand...

I respectively disagree DI. I think these are 2 separate issues. The decision not to pay Samuel elite money LT is separate and exclusive to the failure to immediately fill his spot. The decision NOT to pay him and let him go to the Eagles was the RIGHT one. The FO's failure to find an adequate replacement is subject to debate. Clearly they failed in 2008, but I think Boddin filled the need quite adequately last season, don't you.

I'll break down your paragraph into very small bits, it'll be easier to break down agreements vs. disagreements that way....

patfanken said:

I respectively disagree DI. I think these are 2 separate issues. The decision not to pay Samuel elite money LT is separate and exclusive to the failure to immediately fill his spot.

Click to expand...

I agree to an extent. They are clearly separate issues, but they are also inevitably intertwined. I look to the Samuel issue in the same manner that I look to the Hobbs issue: moving on from the player would have been fine if the replacement had been adequate, but failing to supply an adequate replacement makes the decision to have moved on a mistake. Creating personnel holes when you don't need to is almost always going to be a mistake for a team contending for a title, in any of the major American sports.

patfanken said:

The decision NOT to pay him and let him go to the Eagles was the RIGHT one. The FO's failure to find an adequate replacement is subject to debate.

Click to expand...

The decision to let him go wasn't right or wrong on its own. Samuel was a quality cornerback who played well in the New England system, but he was asking to be overpaid. There's nothing wrong with 'overpaying' for a player now and then, as long as it's only now and then. Belichick understands this. I can understand Belichick's position on this, and I have never been one who thought Samuel was a top 5 corner at all, so I didn't hate the final decision at all. However, the smart move would have been to refuse Samuel's demand that he not be franchised again. Failing to do so was the mistake that took the train off the rails, and the wreck that followed should have surprised nobody.

patfanken said:

Clearly they failed in 2008, but I think Boddin filled the need quite adequately last season, don't you.

Click to expand...

No. Bodden filled the Hobbs role (RCB, which was a role that shouldn't have needed filling in the first place and was one of BB's many mistakes last offseason). The team needs two starting CBs. The Patriots are still hoping to find that second one: the one that replaces Samuel. Springs was supposed to be that player last year, but he didn't pan out. Now everyone's hoping that one of the four puppies can get the job done this year.

Deus Irae said:

I'm not one to lament the loss of Samuel as if Samuel was a top 3 CB, since I didn't consider him to be in the top of the class even when he was with the Patriots, but part of letting players go is finding suitable replacements. The utter failure there absolutely opens up the Samuel decisions to question.

Click to expand...

In a nutshell that's been the Achilles heel of BB's strategy, the inability to backfill departing or retiring talent, even at the competent but journeyman level. His initial selections in the early 2000s were solid contributors. The majority of FAs since then, not so much. The successfull use of draft picks for Welker and Moss were exceptions to the later 2000s trend.

Spiral said:

Actually, I think Hobbs is capable of doing that all by himself.

Asante isn't much of a tackler--neither was Deion Sanders.

Click to expand...

HA HA

Well done Spiral.

patfanken said:

I respectively disagree DI. I think these are 2 separate issues. The decision not to pay Samuel elite money LT is separate and exclusive to the failure to immediately fill his spot. The decision NOT to pay him and let him go to the Eagles was the RIGHT one. The FO's failure to find an adequate replacement is subject to debate. Clearly they failed in 2008, but I think Boddin filled the need quite adequately last season, don't you.

Click to expand...

I liked Samuel, but I always considered him sort of a soft player.

I think youre spot on Ken. BB did not see the next Ty Law in Samuel and let him walk. IMO, NE had their eye on Revis, but the Jets moved up and grabbed him.

Triumph said:

I liked Samuel, but I always considered him sort of a soft player.

I think youre spot on Ken. BB did not see the next Ty Law in Samuel and let him walk. IMO, NE had their eye on Revis, but the Jets moved up and grabbed him.

Click to expand...

BB let Law walk, too, so I don't see where "seeing" the next Law would be at all relevant.

Deus Irae said:

BB let Law walk, too, so I don't see where "seeing" the next Law would be at all relevant.

Click to expand...

Yes, Law walked when his skills were diminishing. BB wasnt going to overpay and give Law the money he wanted at that stage of his career.

At one time, Law was one of the best CBs in the game. Samuel will never be in that group.

Samuel is average.

Triumph said:

Yes, Law walked when his skills were diminishing. BB wasnt going to overpay and give Law the money he wanted at that stage of his career.

At one time, Law was one of the best CBs in the game. Samuel will never be in that group.

Samuel is average.

Click to expand...

Samuel was a top 15 CB, so I'm not sure that's "average". But that's neither here nor there. The reality is that Samuel was not adequately replaced.

Every time I read a thread where I read we should have pay/paid the man I wonder just where the money will come from? Who do we pay and who do we not pay. Can't pay them all what they want.