I honestly think we should go after Samuel

[TheDesertFox]

He's a bit overvalued because of the week FA market and the fact he played for the Patriots, but I don't buy into this "Never go after the big guys because they'll shoot us down anyway" philosophy much of the board has. It seems awfully sour grapesish.

Our secondary was overrated all last season, and it was the sole reason we weren't playing in the Super Bowl (along with our inability to establish a run game, I suppose). A nice, young, fast guy like Samuel would be a great add to our aging corners who are prone to being destroyed by big, physical receivers.

 

[Pack93z]

Where do you play him? Do you shift Woodson or Harris to Nickel or Safety?

I am not against it, but I think there are better deals on the open market than Samuel... Personally I think Law at this point with our style is a better fit and could be more cap friendly in terms of a deal.. front loaded and short.

 

[MassPackersFan]

Sounds like he's going to the Eagles anyway.

 

[Packers_Finland]

Samuel is more of a zone CB. Our scheme plays man-to-man.

 

[BangTheDrum]

Im not a big fan of him, good player just not for us, and he's gonna want huge money

 

[bigfog]

Too much coin again, just like the Briggs thread. Besides, I think the corner situation will be addressed in the draft - so why pick up an expensive guy like Samuel?

Sure, he'd be an upgrade, but it would be subtraction by addition. Either Woodson would have to be moved to another spot (yeah, he'll really like that) or something else.

I think that free agent money can be spent elsewhere.

 

[Tiger]

would be good in Madden but would suck in reality

 

[uwbadger12000]

He's pretty much gone to Philly.

 

[all about da packers]

He's a bit overvalued because of the week FA market and the fact he played for the Patriots, but I don't buy into this "Never go after the big guys because they'll shoot us down anyway" philosophy much of the board has. It seems awfully sour grapesish.

I take issue with that statement.

I've yet to see ANYONE on the board say 'let's not go after that FA because he'll shoot us down', and I've been reeding an awful lot of posts.

I've read people say they don't think player X (not just Samuel) would want to come here because that player wouldn't be starting, and we aren't going to dish out mega bucks to a back-up player.

I'll be blunt: sources say Samuel wants a contract that averages 10 million per year. The Packers are not going to give him that money. Any team would be stupid to invest such money in a position outside QB in today's NFL.

The sole reason we lost the NFC Championship game was the secondary? Damn, I must have watched the wrong game. I could have sworn our O-line blocking was below par, our play calling on both offense and defence was below par, our execution on offense was below par causing our defence to stay on the field majority of the game.

But damn I must have watched the wrong game. And here I thought we WEREN'T one player away from the superbowl, that we had all the pieces and just failed to execute to our potential.

I guess I must be a moron. :roll:

 

[longtimefan]

He's pretty much gone to Philly.

Yeah and I have a feeling that NE is going to lose some key guys unless they can get some other players to re-do deals

 

[Packnic]

He's a bit overvalued because of the week FA market and the fact he played for the Patriots, but I don't buy into this "Never go after the big guys because they'll shoot us down anyway" philosophy much of the board has. It seems awfully sour grapesish.

Our secondary was overrated all last season, and it was the sole reason we weren't playing in the Super Bowl (along with our inability to establish a run game, I suppose). A nice, young, fast guy like Samuel would be a great add to our aging corners who are prone to being destroyed by big, physical receivers.

dude it has nothing to do with sour grapes.

it has to do with value and fiscal responsibility. You can go out and sign an overrated Samuel for over 10 million a year and cripple our franchise fiscally, OR you can draft a couple cornerbacks and let them fight it out. Competition and building within has worked so far and its so freakin smart.

those who closely (probably too closely) follow this team, can see that and ARE NOT AGAINST FREE AGENTS. we just dont like the idea of breaking the bank over a guy who barely increases your teams overall ability.

It has nothing to do with GMs and taking sides on an issue. It has everything to do with being smart.

 

[all about da packers]

^ I completely agree.

 

[Zombieslayer]

dude it has nothing to do with sour grapes.

it has to do with value and fiscal responsibility. You can go out and sign an overrated Samuel for over 10 million a year and cripple our franchise fiscally, OR you can draft a couple cornerbacks and let them fight it out. Competition and building within has worked so far and its so freakin smart.

those who closely (probably too closely) follow this team, can see that and ARE NOT AGAINST FREE AGENTS. we just dont like the idea of breaking the bank over a guy who barely increases your teams overall ability.

It has nothing to do with GMs and taking sides on an issue. It has everything to do with being smart.

Ah, responsibility. That's probably what TT is thinking, and I agree.

 

[longtimefan]

Eagles | Samuel expected to sign soon
Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:19:56 -0800

Updating a previous report, John Clayton, of ESPN.com, reports the Philadelphia Eagles are expected to sign unrestricted free-agent CB Asante Samuel (Patriots) soon. The deal is expected to be more than five years and $47.2 million.

 

[porky88]

Who do we cut or trade to get him? Al Harris or Charles Woodson? Neither would be happy. It would create a problem in the locker room. Packers already have two starters at CB. Two Pro Bowl caliber starters. They need a nickel back. They don't need to pay 30 million up front for Samuel. If they needed a starter I'd say go for it but they don't.

 

[de_real_deal]

Maybe for Deion Sanders or Rod Woodson in his prime might be worth 10 - 11 mil per year. Anyone else, nope. Think about what that would do to Al Harris attitude.

Next topic

 

[de_real_deal]

If we're gonna spend big money, spend it on a need area. I could see us trading for a top of the line safety and paying him huge money. That is what we could use at the moment along with a dominant O-lineman or a dominant pass coverage linebacker. 10 mil for a nickel back = not smart

 

[Arles]

I watched Antoine Cason all year here in Arizona and he is a very good man corner. Plus, he's extremely explosive on the return game. If he slides to 30 (as some predict), it should be a no-brainer to take him for the nickel spot.

I'll pass on paying Samuel that kind of money. I don't know how good he would defend when he doesn't have Beliceck telling him where the pass is going to go before each play

 

[bozz_2006]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Samuel's production slide drastically because of Belichick not telling him exactly where to be and when to be there.

 

[millertime]

Drayton Florence for nickel.

He won't be super expensive, and he is a big, young guy with LOTS of experience. Do it TT!

 

[Pack93z]

Drayton Florence for nickel.

He won't be super expensive, and he is a big, young guy with LOTS of experience. Do it TT!

Not a bad idea.. but I think he might draw a pretty penny on the market.. it is pretty bare at CB.

 

[Arles]

Florence is going to get PAID!

 

[millertime]

Florence is going to get PAID!

We could probably sign him for around what Kawika Mitchell, who I wanted the Pack to get last offseason (He signed a $1 million deal with the Giants), got from Buffalo: 5 years and $17.5 million, with $5 million in guaranteed money.

That's not crazy for a nickel.