Yep. He is what he's grown into. A guy who is a mediocre tackler and gets burn as often as he does make a play. He's a guy who teams were NOT afraid of and who teams continued to throw at even into the play-offs.
Samuel doesn't strike fear into teams the way Sanders did. Or the way Haynes did.
Chefs at my favorite resteraunt don't average 2.75 million a year (which is what I believe the league average is - 32 teams - $112 million per team on the cap - 1300 players or so). So, Andy, your analogy doesn't really apply.
We're talking about a guy who has issues tackling. A guy who teams aren't scared by and who they continued to thorw at throughout the play-offs. Sorry, but Samuel isn't that good a player. He's not worth more than Richard Seymour. He's not worth more than Ty Warren for that matter. Samuel certainly hasn't shown himself to be a leader in the defense the way I'd expect from a TOP corner.
So, convince me, Andy. Convince me that Samuel is worth $30 million over the next 3 years.
I just dont know what games you have been watching. It is ludicrous to say he was bruned as often as he made plays. Please point out all of these times last season that he was burned. I saw him make a boatload of plays. I saw very few instances of him getting burned.
The Moreland comment you have making is assinine. For Earthwind Moreland to get half the ints Samuel did he would have to have good coverage and be in position for them half as often, which wouldn't come close to happening.
You seem to think Ints only count if you leap over the guy and make a Herculian play. The fact is that Ints happen because you play good coverage, are in position, and take advantage of a poor decision of throw. No one out there is picking off passes that are good decisions and good throws, but MANY corners allow passes to be completed that are not the best decisions or throws, but they are not in position like a good corner would be.
The worst you could characterize his tackling FOR A CORNER is average.
I do not need to justify him being worth 3 yrs and 30 mill, thats not my point. There may be no one in the league that such a contract would be a wise investment in.
My point is that its ridiculous to judge the mans character based on the fact that he sees a market where he may be able to get that much money, so he is pursuing his options.
Why does the analogy have anything to do with what the chef makes. Are you saying that you are the person able to judge what everyone else should think enough money is and at what point of income they shouod take anything offered because its so much money? Thats a weak standpoint to argue from.
(By the way, Samuel has made less than that number you threw out there COMBINED so far in his career)
Finaly, you seem to be implying a corner is only good if teams refuse to throw to his side of the field. That means there have been about 3 good corners in NFL history.
To caterogize teams as throwing at him is totally inaccurate. That implies they are trying to exploit him, which is wrong. Not to mention that we play 90% zone defense so offense NEVER, EVER pick on or avoid a player in a zone defense. Passing schemes agaisnt a zone defense are about building a set of complementary routes that CREATE an open receiver. You run progressions based on which route is featured (most likely to come open against that coverage based on what the other routes are) then check down the list. There isnt a corner that has ever played who wouldn't have balls thrown to their area in a zone.
Finally, if you have followed the Pats, which I know you have, there is one dynamic that proves that what you think you see in coverage may not be what is really there.
How many times have you seen a corner making the tackle (or int or break up the pass) 1-2 yards downfield in the flat? Ive seen it 100s of times.
If corners are covering the short flat often in our scheme, how are you determining what their responsibliites are when you say they are being thrown at
I'm rambling now, but I'm not saying Samuel is the greatest corner in the game, but clearly you are way to far on the negative side on him.