ESPN Insider: Samuel NFL's worst tackler

[patfanken]

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.

I totally disagree, or at least I'm misunderstanding this point DI - Boddin gave us a top notch CB to one side. He made big plays, he tackled well, and he had the size to cover the big WRs we see so often these days. I think Boddin has been one of BB's BEST FA pick ups. An argument could be made that he is a better 'all round' CB than Samuel, at a much better value. Besides how much of a difference would it have made in 2008 with a Bradyless offense. Would it given us one more win and get us into the playoff? Maybe, but what then???

BTW - I think the decision not to franchise Samuel was made well before that season. The Pats weren't going to overpay for a very good, but limited CB. Hobbs on the other hand was always a better fit at the nickel, where he wouldn't be a such a physical disadvantage as often and his quickness and cover skills would make up for his lack of physicality and size.

The other thing you are ignoring is what the impact would have been HAD the Pats overpaid Samuel. Would all the resignings we saw THIS off season been possible if we had paid that kind of money to Assante.

 

[Deus Irae]

I totally disagree, or at least I'm misunderstanding this point DI - Boddin gave us a top notch CB to one side. He made big plays, he tackled well, and he had the size to cover the big WRs we see so often these days. I think Boddin has been one of BB's BEST FA pick ups. An argument could be made that he is a better 'all round' CB than Samuel, at a much better value. Besides how much of a difference would it have made in 2008 with a Bradyless offense. Would it given us one more win and get us into the playoff? Maybe, but what then???

1.) Bodden is not a top notch CB, although he is starting quality.

2.) The loss of Samuel meant that the Patriots went from two starting quality CBs to one. The trading away of Hobbs and the failures of Springs and the puppy brigade last year meant that the team was still stuck with just one. Hopefully, this will be the season where one of the puppies becomes a big dog, and we can go back to the days when the Patriots had 2 legitimate starting CBs again.

3.) As well as that Patriots team was playing at the end of 2008, I doubt there was a team in the NFL that wanted to face them in the playoffs.

4.) Bodden/Samuel/Hobbs.... all pretty much interchangeable, depending on what specifics you're looking at from your CB.

BTW - I think the decision not to franchise Samuel was made well before that season. The Pats weren't going to overpay for a very good, but limited CB. Hobbs on the other hand was always a better fit at the nickel, where he wouldn't be a such a physical disadvantage as often and his quickness and cover skills would make up for his lack of physicality and size.

When the decision was made is irrelevant. We can see by looking back that it was a bad decision. Again, that's not because of letting Samuel go but, rather, it's because of not having an adequate replacement ready to step in.

The other thing you are ignoring is what the impact would have been HAD the Pats overpaid Samuel. Would all the resignings we saw THIS off season been possible if we had paid that kind of money to Assante.

I'm not ignoring anything salary cap related. It's just that the salary cap, as an issue, did not really exist by 2007. As we saw for the last several seasons under the salary cap, it was easy to maneuver the cap and keep whichever players teams wanted. Other than contract restructuring, nothing of significance would have changed, and this offseason would have been no problem since it's uncapped anyway.

 

[Nathan]

I read somewhere last season (think it may have been Football Outsiders) that your chance of winning goes up a preposterous amount every time you add +1 to your turnover differential. Something like 15-20%. That is HUGE. Asante generates interceptions. Big ones, especially in the playoffs. We all know that. HOWEVER he needs good safety play behind him to clean up some of the messes he makes. If you have someone behind him that can staunch the bleeding from one of his failed gambles to a 35 yard gain rather than 6 points it's kind of worth it. The bad tackling is a little more annoying. You can thank Deion Sanders for that. "Business decision". Him not wanting to play press is simply him wanting to do what he does best. You can't jump routes if you don't have a cushion to work with and you can't sneak looks at the QB if you're trying to keep your hands on your guy.

All that being said I'd still rather have him on the Pats than not (although not at the $ that the Eagles gave him). There was a play last year where he jumped someone else's receiver's route. Just broke off the deep route and jumped one of the underneath routes.

However, I will never forgive him for dropping the game sealer in the SB.

 

[Simkin]

so that s give meriweather the 2nd place

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

Really? The departure of Samuel doomed and the subsequent machinations helped to doom the 08 and 09 seasons?? Ummm... gee, well, yeah, yeah, you could say that.. But it's so nice of you to make your statements so grey that you don't commit to them.

2008 - As soon as Brady went down, the Pats weren't going deep into the play-offs. There were other injuries during the season as well that hurt the Pats more than not having Samuel.

2009 - What doomed the 2009 season was a lack of identity on defense and the locker room cancers that have since been excised. What also doomed the 2009 season was a lack of commitment to the running game by the offense. Those far outweigh the issue with the LCB position. Heck, the issues with LBer outweigh the issue with the CB position.

Saying that Samuel contributed to the doom is like saying that a bad emergency brake contributed to a crash of a Toyota Prius after the accelerator got stuck, the brakes were worn down, the air bags didn't deploy, and the electrical system shorted out.

 

[DaBruinz]

I'm not ignoring anything salary cap related. It's just that the salary cap, as an issue, did not really exist by 2007. As we saw for the last several seasons under the salary cap, it was easy to maneuver the cap and keep whichever players teams wanted. Other than contract restructuring, nothing of significance would have changed, and this offseason would have been no problem since it's uncapped anyway.

I think you are ignoring the salary cap ramifications because it has a cascade effect. And it's not THAT easy for teams to move around. Samuel got a 6 year deal worth $57 million and $20 mill guaranteed. Of which, Samuel cost $10 million against the cap in 2008 and 9.995 million in 2009. Where would the Pats have gotten the money to pay Samuel under the cap without creating holes in other places or not being able to re-sign guys like Warren, Sanders, and others?? You mention restructuring contracts, but that only get's you so much and will only take you so far. And you are SOL if you've already re-negotiated a contract with a player within the last year.

So, where would the money have come from?

 

[Deus Irae]

I think you are ignoring the salary cap ramifications because it has a cascade effect. And it's not THAT easy for teams to move around. Samuel got a 6 year deal worth $57 million and $20 mill guaranteed. Of which, Samuel cost $10 million against the cap in 2008 and 9.995 million in 2009. Where would the Pats have gotten the money to pay Samuel under the cap without creating holes in other places or not being able to re-sign guys like Warren, Sanders, and others?? You mention restructuring contracts, but that only get's you so much and will only take you so far. And you are SOL if you've already re-negotiated a contract with a player within the last year.

So, where would the money have come from?

Rather than answer your final question, let me pose something for you....

Please list all the very good/great players lost by the Colts due strictly to salary considerations from 2006-2009 for which there was no adequate replacement waiting. Note that Harrison clearly doesn't count for that list since injury resulted in a significant decline in his play.

As I've noted in the past, the Patriots were 10th in actual dollars spent from 2004-2008. That means that 9 teams spent more. They clearly could have found the money had they chosen to do so.*

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/317666-my-early-perception-patriots-3rd-best-afc-east.html#post1709674

*I'm not calling the team cheap. I'm just pointing out the numbers showing that more money obviously have been spent had the team chosen to go that route.