Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by mgteich, Jun 10, 2007.
This is a simple poll.
I suspect Bill would be willing to gamble the first game or two just to show that we can win without him....sort of making the statement of....
you need us more than we need you
to answer the question though, no, I do not expect Samuel to be on the field in a Pats uniform for game one
We're going to be screwed if he doesn't. I expect Bill is fully aware of this, so I suspect something will happen between now and then which would allow Samuel to return for game one.
This is looking more and more like Deion Branch Part II. I don't think he'll be with us, sorry to say.
Yes, I think he will. I am hoping that the current position, as I understand it, is posturing. I see an improving player that I want the Pats to keep. Good corners are increasingly rare.
Seems that Assante is polarizing himself from this team on all fronts, the best value for the Pats is let him go for comparable compensation.
And go into the season with Hobbs and James/Scott/Gay as the starting CBs?
and then what? we give him what he wants? we let him go?
When did Asante Samuel become Champ Bailey? Samuel is an average CB who put up some good stats. You could still pick on him at times. Heck even Rex Grossman got a lot of big plays throwing at him. Samuel wasn't even considered an above average CB in early November of last year.
We play mostly a zone defense and use our front seven to disrupt the CB. Our front seven is the key to our defense. We won a Super Bowl with Gay and Samuel (and Hobbs is far better than Samuel was in 2004) because of our front seven.
Going back to his Giants days, other than Ty Law can you name a great CB who Belichick has had in his system? Quick, name the starting CBs on the 1990 Giants' Super Bowl team. Or how about the 1986 one. I bet unless you followed the Giants pretty closely back then, you can't. You can name guys like LT, Carl Banks, Pepper Johnson, Leonard Marshall, Harry Carson, and Jim Burt without even thinking too hard though. That is a clear sign that CBs aren't all that important to the Belichick system in comparisons to the front seven.
That all being said, I really doubt that Samuel will sit out. He will leave $5 million on the table if he sits until week #10. Branch risked losing about $1 million. Four million dollars is a big gap to make it worthwhile for Samuel to sit out especially since doing so could hurt his value in next year's market. Branch was risking far less.
We're not screwed for the regular season.
Wait until game 10 when he needs to report and have him prep for the playoffs where we DO need him.
Yes I think Samuels will be playing for us this season. IMO it hurts him more to hold out. I can't see him walking away from 5mill.
Samuel must have his own doubts about his performance last year -- whether it was indicative of his capability or it was a statistical anomaly. If he were confident enough, he'd accept the tag and negotiate for the Pats to agree not to apply it next year.
Mostly I agree with that, though I voted that he'll skip the first game to see if he can get an early season trade, and if not, come back for the remaining games.
One question I have: does Shavers get a full 3% of a new contract if it's a franchise contract? That may affect the whisper in Samuel's ear.
Lastly, if he sits out 10 games, he loses $4.8 million but he also eliminates 10/16th of the physical risk. After that, he plays in the highest profile games: the end of season and playoffs. So he maximizes his risk/reward and positions himself for free agency and if he gets hurt, he still walks away with plenty of money.
If it were me, I'd play all 16 games and take the money. But I'm 50-year-old desk jockey, not a 25-year-old tattooed professional athlete who spends his Sundays in body armor running like the wind. I doubt we think alike.
Shavers does get his commission if Samuel signs his franchise tag. Orlando Pace fired his agent just to avoid that one year.
Overall, word is Shavers has done a pretty good job not turning this thing into a nuclear meltdown. Word is that Samuel wants to get really nasty with the Patriots and Shavers has made him tone down his rhetoric.
I can't agree that we will be "screwed". Randall Gay started Super Bowl 39 and is very capable. Chad Scott still has the talent to be a started in this league and I honestly think that we will have better DB depth going into this season the we have the last 2-3 seasons. Tory James ads even more veteran depth. There is an article in today's Herald about this very issue.
Samuel has come into his own, and had a career year last season. Does last hear mean he is one of the top 5 corners in the NFL? I am not sold.
I just don't think Asante Samuel is critical to the defense having great success this season. With the amount of pressure we are going to bring defensively this season, the different looks we will be able to show given the enormous amount of talent we have, and the additional depth we have at DB over what we had at the end of last season (No Harrison, Gay, Wilson...) I think our DB's are going to be fine with or without Asante.
I see another guy leaving for a big pay check that will have a mediocre career somewhere else (never getting even close to another ring)...and the Patriots using that (8+ million per season) money to hold the nucleus together for another couple of years (and having a shot at winning a coouple more rings)...
You left out an option in the poll. I don't think he'll be back b4 game 10 as he threatened. IMO this is a crucial negotiation that the Pats can't blink on. After Sey and Branch "won", I think the team needs to hold the line. The other players will correctly get the impression that all you need to do is hold out and you get your way. They need to show the players that holding out holds some financial risk. Why wouldn't players hold out if they always get their way by doing so? The Pats should tell Samuel's agent that if he doesn't agree to a deal they will welcome him back for game 10 and he will lose about 5 million in salary and they will franchise him again next year and the year after, right through his peak earning years. They need to be very tough with him.
The risk he runs playing in the last 6 games is that he won't be "game ready" to play. No matter how hard you work out, if you're not actually playing you're not in shape. IMO if he comes back at game 10, he increases the risk of injury not to mention poor overall play. But as you say, the risk/reward debate goes out the window when dealing with a potentially angry young jock!
I really wouldnt mind him on another team. Maybe we would have 5 first rounders in the next 2 years.
I'm very confident he plays Week 1 for someone this year. That wasn't an option, though, so I voted for Week 1 for us as that seems more likely than a trade. But as a second option, I see a trade more likely than him sitting at home.
I am optimistic on this because I don't think Asante will leave that kind of money on the table while simutaneously sabotaging his chances for a big contract by sitting out over half of the season. I also don't believe that BB would allow him to walk on the team during the 10th week and play, especially if we're already 8-2 or 7-3 at that point. The defense will have found a rhythm by week 10, and if not, then BB will have probably brought Asante back quicker if he has to show him some more $$.
Well let me say this, if samuel will sit out for 10 games, I would choose not to play him at all. I think at this point he has shown he is not a team player.
It's tough to forego $400K per week, week after week. While I too believe that Asante's publicly expressed lust for big money will prevent him from siting out until week 10, I am not 100% certain that his money lust exceeds his ego factor. Don't know him well enough to tell for sure.
What does it matter if we're 8-2 on week 10?
What DOES matter is how healthy at that time are our DBs. I find it inconceivable that the starters and their backups are all healthy that far into the season. If as is most likely they are not all healthy, then a Samuel is great even if only for depth and insurance. Then, there's that minor matter of facing the Colts in the playoffs. For that reason alone I believe a BB would want an Asante on his playoff squad.
I do not believe that BB will acceed to Asante's request for champ Bailey money.
I voted Yes... bu then again, I voted Yes on Branch last year... :bricks:
The Pats would never agree to that in negotiations.
You forgot the "will not be with the team" option.
I say just bench him if he wants to act like this.
I voted that he'll be back before the first game. I think that his decision will hinge somewhat on word out of camp. How Wilson, Gay, Meriweather or Scott looks at the spot.
If the secondary performs well the first two preseason exhibitions, I can see him hurrying in to make sure doesn't lose the guaranteed money nor his spot on the roster.
If the secondary suffers some injuries or the plan doesn't look to be panning out, I can see him waiting till week 10 to come back. He'd maximize his future earnings while minimizing his risk by doing so, and still have a chance to shine in the playoffs.
I do not see BB cutting his nose off to spite his face, by benching Samuel for the balance of the season. For one reason, it's against the rules these days. For another, BB has always said he plays the guys that can do the job, in practice & on the field. Once Samuel practices for 3 to 4 weeks, he'll be ready to contribute in December.
I don't think there's more than a slim chance that he'll be traded this year, nor that BB will waive the right to tag him again next year. It's easier to plug in one or two receivers into the starting lineup than it is to do so at LCB. It would not be worth it to the pats, unless some team was willing to offer more than one #1 pick.
If indeed Samuel wants a Nate Clements type contract, therefore I think he has played his last game in New England.
He'll make $450K+ a week.. he'd be an idiot not to be there every week.
Separate names with a comma.