Asante Samuel (1 Viewer)

[Andy Herron]

No cornerback is worth that much. You build your defense from the front to the back. I can't see why a team would throw that type of $$$ at a corner. You want to throw big $$$ around, call Albert Haynesworth's agent. He would have a far bigger impact than a cornerback.

I couldn't disagree more. Top shelf corners are second only to quarterbacks in building any NFL franchise. It's all in the numbers as to how much they are valued.The current single-year franchise tender amounts by position for 2008 are $10.7 million for quarterbacks, $9.5 million for cornerbacks, $8.8 million for defensive ends, $8.1 million for linebackers, $7.8 million for wide receivers, $7.5 million for offensive linemen, $6.5 million for running backs, $6.3 million for defensive tackles, $4.5 million for tight ends, $4.4 million for safeties and $2.6 million for kickers.

Completely disagree. You build your defense from the front four out. If there is any position in the secondary that is important to me, it is SS. Just because a franchise tender is more, in no way means that a cornerback is the most important part of the defense. You build a good D Line, you pressure the qb, less time the secondary needs to cover. You have a good D Line, you force offenses into more 3rd and longs, that makes it easier on the secondary.

All one needs to do is look at the 2007 Denver Broncos. They had the best CB in the league and another very good CB, and yet their defense was rather crappy. And why? Because they couldn't stop the run or rush the passer. Having a great corner (or even two great corners) doesn't mean squat if you can't get to the QB, because even the best corners can only cover a WR for so long, so if the QB has all day to throw, someone will get open.

Sorry guys, but in the day and age of the salary cap era, the proof is in the pudding. It's not so much the franchise tender itself, but the collective salaries that produce that number because of the value of the position. Ask any GM or coach, the most athletic player on the field are your corners, because the demands of the position are so high. You can sometimes hide lower-level corners with a good pass rush (Giants-who by the way are seeking CB help), but if you don't, you're cooked. Teams ran on Denver because they couldn't pass. Offense 101.

Wow, I don't think there is a word in here that I agree with. Teams could run and pass on Denver, and that was because of their front four, and to a lesser extent their linebackers. Like I said before, you control the trenches, you force 2nd and 3rd and longs. You also pressure the passer and force them to alter, hurry throws. This helps the db's in a major way. Nobody is arguing that DB's aren't the most athletic players on the field. Many would say their wide receivers are their second most athletic. Would you rather have an franchise wide receiver or quarterback? Give me a Richard Seymour over Asante Samuel any day of the week. The Giants secondary was terrible. But they sure looked good when the Giants D Line was controlling the game, didn't they?

Sorry, just had to point that out. It's just funny, not taking a shot at you.

Touche. I just saw that. I guess we do agree that DB's are the most athletic.

Specifically cornerback. I played the position myself in high school. Had to stick up for it.

 

[thayman]

No cornerback is worth that much. You build your defense from the front to the back. I can't see why a team would throw that type of $$$ at a corner. You want to throw big $$$ around, call Albert Haynesworth's agent. He would have a far bigger impact than a cornerback.

I couldn't disagree more. Top shelf corners are second only to quarterbacks in building any NFL franchise. It's all in the numbers as to how much they are valued.The current single-year franchise tender amounts by position for 2008 are $10.7 million for quarterbacks, $9.5 million for cornerbacks, $8.8 million for defensive ends, $8.1 million for linebackers, $7.8 million for wide receivers, $7.5 million for offensive linemen, $6.5 million for running backs, $6.3 million for defensive tackles, $4.5 million for tight ends, $4.4 million for safeties and $2.6 million for kickers.

Completely disagree. You build your defense from the front four out. If there is any position in the secondary that is important to me, it is SS. Just because a franchise tender is more, in no way means that a cornerback is the most important part of the defense. You build a good D Line, you pressure the qb, less time the secondary needs to cover. You have a good D Line, you force offenses into more 3rd and longs, that makes it easier on the secondary.

All one needs to do is look at the 2007 Denver Broncos. They had the best CB in the league and another very good CB, and yet their defense was rather crappy. And why? Because they couldn't stop the run or rush the passer. Having a great corner (or even two great corners) doesn't mean squat if you can't get to the QB, because even the best corners can only cover a WR for so long, so if the QB has all day to throw, someone will get open.

Do you really think one example is proof of your theory?

One example doesn't prove his point, but a great pass rush can cover up the flaws in a mediocre secondary a lot better than a great secondary can cover the flaws of a mediocre pass rush.

Incorrect.

The NYG mediocre secondary would beg to differ with you.

Let me just throw two words out there that would directly correlate with the debate: "Coverage sack."

So if you had your choice between having a mediocre to bad pass rush or a mediocre to bad secondary you would take the bad pass rush?

 

[Andy Herron]

No cornerback is worth that much. You build your defense from the front to the back. I can't see why a team would throw that type of $$$ at a corner. You want to throw big $$$ around, call Albert Haynesworth's agent. He would have a far bigger impact than a cornerback.

I couldn't disagree more. Top shelf corners are second only to quarterbacks in building any NFL franchise. It's all in the numbers as to how much they are valued.The current single-year franchise tender amounts by position for 2008 are $10.7 million for quarterbacks, $9.5 million for cornerbacks, $8.8 million for defensive ends, $8.1 million for linebackers, $7.8 million for wide receivers, $7.5 million for offensive linemen, $6.5 million for running backs, $6.3 million for defensive tackles, $4.5 million for tight ends, $4.4 million for safeties and $2.6 million for kickers.

Completely disagree. You build your defense from the front four out. If there is any position in the secondary that is important to me, it is SS. Just because a franchise tender is more, in no way means that a cornerback is the most important part of the defense. You build a good D Line, you pressure the qb, less time the secondary needs to cover. You have a good D Line, you force offenses into more 3rd and longs, that makes it easier on the secondary.

All one needs to do is look at the 2007 Denver Broncos. They had the best CB in the league and another very good CB, and yet their defense was rather crappy. And why? Because they couldn't stop the run or rush the passer. Having a great corner (or even two great corners) doesn't mean squat if you can't get to the QB, because even the best corners can only cover a WR for so long, so if the QB has all day to throw, someone will get open.

Do you really think one example is proof of your theory?

One example doesn't prove his point, but a great pass rush can cover up the flaws in a mediocre secondary a lot better than a great secondary can cover the flaws of a mediocre pass rush.

Incorrect.

The NYG mediocre secondary would beg to differ with you.

Let me just throw two words out there that would directly correlate with the debate: "Coverage sack."

So if you had your choice between having a mediocre to bad pass rush or a mediocre to bad secondary you would take the bad pass rush?

It's easier to scheme up front with blitz packages than it is to scheme coverages in the secondary. The secondary is what it is, pretty much. There's only 4 in a base defense, as opposed to the front seven.

 

[GroveDiesel]

The Niners gave a ridiculous amount of money to Nate Clements and their defense didn't really improve at all from the year before. And that's even with the unbelievable play of Patrick Willis.

Samuel lost a LOT of money when he got franchised last year. He probably would have received the contract that Clements got last year. I don't think he'll see that kind of money this year, especially after a good but not great season.

 

[Boston]

The Niners gave a ridiculous amount of money to Nate Clements and their defense didn't really improve at all from the year before. And that's even with the unbelievable play of Patrick Willis.Samuel lost a LOT of money when he got franchised last year. He probably would have received the contract that Clements got last year. I don't think he'll see that kind of money this year, especially after a good but not great season.

He actually has a chance to make more money. He made close to 8 mil last year. Now he's in a situation where after some franchising he is by far the top target at the CB position. If he gets what he's looking for (or even close to it) he'll be tacking that on to the big money last year and he'll be sitting very pretty.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

So just out of curiosity, how good is Samuel? Who does he compare to? (in the last 10 years or so) My personal feeling is that on the right defense he's a very good player, but put him on a bad team and you don't ever notice him - much like Niner Nate.

 

[Boston]

So just out of curiosity, how good is Samuel? Who does he compare to? (in the last 10 years or so) My personal feeling is that on the right defense he's a very good player, but put him on a bad team and you don't ever notice him - much like Niner Nate.

For the first three years of his career he was erratic. He'd have very good games and games where he was just awful. He always seemed to have some sort of nagging injury those first three years as well. The last two years he's been a big time CB. He's good against the run and the pass, isn't afraid to give out a big hit and has the ability to make big plays.Unfortunately the question as to whether he's somewhat of a system CB won't be answered until he joins his next team. There's some speculation about that but I don't think anyone truly knows because they've only seen him in one system. That's the gamble a team shelling out big money has to take. He's still real young and I think he's going to be good wherever he goes but for the money he's going to get he'll need to be great to justify that contract. One thing I will add. One area the Pats have been excellent at is deciding which of their players to keep/pay and which ones to let walk for greener pastures. Their batting average in that area is very healthy. From what I can tell the Pats do like Samuel but have never really been serious about giving him anywhere near the money he'll get on the open market. Losing him is going to be a blow but I don't get the impression it's something they're overly concerned with which on the surface is somewhat of a surprise since they're pretty thin right now at CB.