Skins interested in Gallery?
 

By Len Pasquarelli
ESPN.com
[url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=1779085"]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=1779085[/url]
With the news this week that [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=nyg"][color=#00009b]New York Giants[/color][/url] general manager Ernie Accorsi phoned [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=sdg"][color=#00009b]San Diego Chargers[/color][/url] counterpart A.J. Smith to discuss a deal involving the top spot in the 2004 draft and likely acquisition of Mississippi quarterback Eli Manning, the NFL world was at least temporarily nudged back onto its axis.



Accorsi earned his stripes in the NFL watching guys like Johnny Unitas play the game's most demanding role and, in a league where it has become suddenly chic to diminish the quarterback position, he remains an old-guard true believer in the axiom that you need a great signal-caller to win championships.



Evidence to the contrary -- a former sixth-round pick, [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5228"][color=#00009b]Tom Brady[/color][/url] of New England, won two of the last three Super Bowl games and [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=2160"][color=#00009b]Brad Johnson[/color][/url], who came into the NFL as a ninth-round selection, claimed the other -- we agree. And so now the latest member of the most prolific quarterback family tree in NFL history figures to be the main focus of draft chatter for the ensuing two weeks.



Still, there is evidence supporting the notion that, if Manning is the highest profile player in the draft pool, Iowa offensive tackle Robert Gallery remains the [i]safest[/i] choice. Just as the Giants organization is scrambling to divine the formula for securing Manning, whose surname alone would be magic in The Big Apple, it appears even more franchises covet a shot at Gallery, who could be the second overall prospect off the board.



[img]http://espn.starwave.com/media/insider/2004/0407/photo/g_gallery_vt.jpg[/img][font=verdana, arial, geneva][size=1][color=#666666][b]Gallery is the only sure bet left tackle prospect this year.[/b][/color][/size][/font]For openers, Gallery is the lone sure-thing left tackle prospect in the talent pool, and the dropoff to the next-best pass protector is a precipitous one. While not in the same subset yet as NFL veterans such as [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=3540"][color=#00009b]Jonathan Ogden[/color][/url] of Baltimore, Seattle's [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=3949"][color=#00009b]Walter Jones[/color][/url] or [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=3951"][color=#00009b]Orlando Pace[/color][/url] of St. Louis, he possesses a remarkable upside. And Gallery has been well-schooled by Kirk Ferentz, the Iowa head coach and former [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=cle"][color=#00009b]Cleveland Browns[/color][/url] offensive line tutor, a guy who is now regularly sending great blockers to the NFL.



But beyond Gallery's estimable talents, and his Eagle Scout character, there is this factor: The left tackle position, in retrospect, has risen dramatically in importance over the past few years. And those teams that have solidified the tackle position in general over the last decade have realized handsome dividends.



Since 1995, there have been 15 offensive tackles chosen in the top half of the first round, and all 15 are currently starters in the league. In the last 10 lotteries, a dozen tackles were selected in the top 10, and one could argue that all have carved out notable NFL tenures to this juncture of their respective careers.



Of the eight tackles chosen in the top 10 of the draft 1995-2000, all but [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=4273"][color=#00009b]Kyle Turley[/color][/url] have been to at least one Pro Bowl game. [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=3136"][color=#00009b]Tony Boselli[/color][/url], whose career was cut short by a series of shoulder injuries, will be a Hall of Fame candidate. Ditto Ogden, Pace and Jones once their careers conclude. [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=hou"][color=#00009b]Houston Texans[/color][/url] tailback [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=6437"][color=#00009b]Domanick Davis[/color][/url] won rookie of the year honors for last season, but most league observers acknowledge the most accomplished first-year player in 2003 was Carolina tackle [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=6344"][color=#00009b]Jordan Gross[/color][/url], who will switch from the right side to the left side in 2004.



Once an afterthought, the tackle position is now a priority, and left tackle has risen to near-skill position status. All one needs to do is review the upward spiral of contract averages for offensive tackles over the last seven seasons.



"Nothing is ever going to replace (the quarterback position) as the most critical one on the field," allowed [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=stl"][color=#00009b]St. Louis Rams[/color][/url] coach Mike Martz at last month's league meetings. "But if you don't have a left tackle, well, you'd better get one, because you're in trouble. It really is one of the biggest building blocks. You can't function without a big-time left tackle."



The importance of the left tackle spot certainly has been reflected in what has transpired, or, more accurately, [i]hasn't[/i] transpired, during the current free agency period. Just three left tackles of note -- [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=2893"][color=#00009b]Todd Steussie[/color][/url] (of Carolina), [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=2371"][color=#00009b]Derrick Deese[/color][/url] (San Francisco) and [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=4428"][color=#00009b]Ephraim Salaam[/color][/url] (Denver) -- switched teams this spring. And all three did so only after they were released.



The top young left tackle who was to have been available, Green Bay's [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5073"][color=#00009b]Chad Clifton[/color][/url], was re-signed by the Packers before he ever hit the open market. That is in lockstep with the current mindset in the NFL, which strongly suggests that teams do whatever it takes to hold onto quality left tackles. The current 32 starting left tackles in the NFL are under contract, at this point, for an average of more than three more years.



And that, in typically convoluted fashion, brings us full-circle back to Robert Gallery.



The franchise that lands the Iowa star figures to secure his services, and thus ensure some degree of bodily safety for its starting quarterback, for the next six or seven seasons. Little wonder, then, that so many teams covet him and are plotting potential scenarios for trying to get into position to snatch him. Little wonder, too, that the [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=oak"][color=#00009b]Oakland Raiders[/color][/url] are getting a lot of phone calls about the second overall spot in the draft, and what it might take to pry that slot away from them.



Cleveland, which flirted briefly with the idea of trading for Pace, has made no pretense of its interest in Gallery, who would be the centerpiece of a revamped blocking unit. But the team that is perhaps most ardent in its pursuit of Gallery is Washington, which would like to slide up three rungs in the draft, to the Oakland spot, to choose him. The Redskins, to this point, have demonstrated stealth in their efforts, but now they have been outed.



[b]Yeah, we know, the Redskins already have a top-flight left tackle in [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5032"][color=#00009b]Chris Samuels[/color][/url]. And we just noted, only a few paragraphs ago, that teams with proven left tackles (Samuels has made a pair of Pro Bowl appearances), don't discard them.[/b]



[b]Both points are well-taken, but this is the Redskins we're discussing, and owner Daniel Snyder doesn't always adhere to league convention. More important, Snyder does not deal well with players who don't play according to his rules. Samuels, in rejecting all overtures toward the kind of contract extension linebacker [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5031"][color=#00009b]LaVar Arrington[/color][/url] bit on, is seen by the Redskins now in a different light.[/b]



[b]The Snyder rationale: If you're not with me, and not going to provide me the kind of salary cap relief I need, well, you can go the way of [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=4655"][color=#00009b]Champ Bailey[/color][/url]. Samuels has a salary cap charge of $8.749 million for 2004 and, after twice previously reworking his contract to help Snyder out of jams, is balking at another re-do. Plus having played two seasons in the flawed pass protection scheme drawn up by the deposed Steve Spurrier, the left tackle wants a shot to rehabilitate himself.[/b]



[b]What the Redskins would prefer to do is cut a deal, perhaps using wide receiver [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5462"][color=#00009b]Rod Gardner[/color][/url] as trade bait, that allows them to choose Gallery. And then they could either deal Samuels to a tackle-needy team, like Cleveland, or release him at some point.[/b]



[b]While it doesn't have the marquee status of the Giants' pursuit of Manning, the chase for Gallery is almost as intriguing, and certainly magnifies the importance of left tackles.[/b]

I'll be a little disappointed if he's selected, the biggest needs are on D.

That would be ridiciulous if they did that.. I know Samuels isn't playing nice with Snyder right now, but that scenario that Pastabelly laid out was foolish.

More fuel for the Samuels/Gallery rumors

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A521-2004Apr9.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A521-2004Apr9.html[/url]

As far as I can tell, trading or releasing Samuels prior to June 1st would generate an $8.796 million cap charge in 2004, due to unamortized signing bonus. The net cap hit for 2004 (subtracting his base salary for 2004-- $5.132 million-- from the signing bonus charge) would be $3.664 million.

However, that would free up $9.643 million in 2005, and a whopping $11.32 million in 2006. Considering Smoot will be a free agent in 2005, and Arrington's cap hit for 2006 is slated to be around $12.414 million, eliminating Samuels' big numbers would help tremendously in retaining those two players.

Samuels may have angered Snyder by refusing to re-work his deal, but I have a feeling the motives for drafting Gallery and moving Samuels would be more salary cap-related than anything personal against Samuels. Though Gallery would certainly demand a huge contract, the numbers of the first 3-4 years would likely be rather cap-friendly-- certainly nowhere near as damaging as Samuels' numbers over the same timeframe.

Now, I may have totally screwed up those cap numbers, so I'd appreciate it if Crazy Canuck-- or somebody with more cap-savvy than me-- would enlighten us on the cap stats for moving Samuels.

Here's my take on the issue. Drafting Gallery would be quite dissapointing, in my view. Depenidng on those cap numbers, it could be a decent move cap-wise, but as far as next season, we arent gaining anything. In fact, were proboly losing more. If we traded a WR like Garnder and got rid of a LT like Samuels, we wind up getting rid of a #2 reciver in the end, and the tackles just cancel each other out. " April Fools day is 9 days late " I sure hope that to be true.

This is getting a little weird to me. Don't we need help on D. Am I the only one who thinks that.

No, I'm with you skins 009. I really think this is just rumors, I'm suprised it took this long before we heard this crap. I would have to hear what the actual trade was before I took a side on it. I gotta think, though, were gonna have to give up #5, in which case I'm completley against it.

We are wasting a top five draft choice, and players to get nothing in return. Gallery would not step in and do anythign for our team. That doesnt mean he isnt a good player, it just means hes playing where I great player was. Our team as a whole would not be better. I hope that this is just crap talk before the draft. Unless they got the second pick to deal it to pick up more picks...but that seems like a stupid risk

Could be that this scenario was intentionally leaked by the Redskins FO-- after all, Cerrato himself said, "teams are giving out false smoke signals all the time." Who better to send smoke signals than the Redskins themselves? Wouldn't propagating a Samuels trade rumor-- especially one where Samuels might wind up in Cleveland, of all places-- provide leverage in convincing Samuels to renegotiate his ridiculous cap numbers? Well, his agent isn't biting for now. But I have a feeling this is only the beginning of the "Trade Samuels Saga".

I agree, if we get rid of Samuels and draft gallery all we would have done, is create a hole, and then fill it. But we won't have actually helped our selves out. The only senario i could see being worth while is trading Samuels and gardner to cleveland, then drafting gallary with our 5 if NY passes and then taking a d-linemen with clevelands pick. In this Senario Tayler would be gone. Being drafted by detriot. Windslow would still be on the board. But once again we woulda have a fanatasy offense with no defense.

I wonder if there's anyway they could pry the #2 away from Oakland without giving up the #5 ... maybe a package of Samuels, Gardner and next year's #1? Gallery is supposed to be awesome and Samuels' play has been suspect recently, but if they're talking about trading the #5, I'd rather stand pat and take Taylor or Winslow. Even trading down for DL help is preferable to trading up.

Trading down in this draft would help us more than trading up. I think staying put and adding later picks is the way to go. Samuels isnt worth what he is getting paid, if anything give him next year to see if he steps his game back up, mabye talk to him during the season about restructuring so we can keep Smoot

This is kind of funny because I almost started a thread about this very thing the other night but decieded not to because I didn't feel right now we would be able to get enough for samuel's, the only way I do this is if I can send samuel's, gardner, and something else and keep my #5, but I say we should wait this one out we could get lucky and have him fall to us and then see what we can come up with in a trade for samuel's and gardner. Although samuel's hasen't played well under SS He need's to be given a shot with a real coach, but considering his production the last 2 year's, regardless, he should be more than occomadating on restructuring his salary.

Hmm, it depends on what the Raiders want to do, and I havent heard to much about Norvs plan. They hold the cards, if they want Roy they can probably draft him a little later. It depends on if the Giants trade up as well.

in the story by the washington post it didn't make any mention of the Redskins trading the #5 overall pick with samuels, it just says samuels may be traded. Samuels is still a young tackle with probowl talent and he's got quite a bit of trade value in him. If we can trade both him and Gardner(filling two holes for the raiders), why not trade them(plus a future pick or 2 if needed) to the raiders for the #2 pick, draft gallery, and still use our #5 pick to select taylor, Winslow, or trade down for d-line help. This would free up a tremendous amount of future cap space and give us a player who is probably a better tackle than Samuels and cheaper and younger. With Samuels and Gardner traded and with the cutting of trotter, moore, and trung, would we have the room to sign both(or all our picks if we trade down)? I've liked Samuels but his cap #'s are way too high and if we can replace him with a better player for less money and still keep our pick, why not do this? plus hasn't bugel been drooling over Gallery this spring? Man I can't wait until next saturday.

i love it
 

i love the idea of trading samuels to either oakland or cleveland. just hope recoop a 1st in the process... like samuels to cleveland for their 1st and 3rd. or 1st n gardner to oakland.... love it

Lets remember one thing about Samuels constract, its mostly the fault of the redskins front office. He has already restructred his contract twice, and he's only been in the league for three years. Thats excactly why is cap numbers are so high now. This is just another example of Synders inability to manage the cap. With all this said, I think Samuels needs to be given a chance to play under a real coach and blocking system. As a rookie under Marty he was outstanding, in a position where is is traditionally very difficult to step in and play as a rookie. I think the FO should forget about Gallery and focus in the Deffense. I also think we should be trying to get something it terms of draft picks for Trotter and most importantly Gardner. Somebody should be willing to pick them up.

Skins, if he wants a chance to play under a "real coach" as you put it, then he better play like he deserves some sort of recognition. You know what, bad blocking schemes or not, he still got beat by his man, a lot. He was letting sacks by, Jansen wasn't!

He needs to get paid at the callibre of game he's playing. League minimum!

Restructure or get the hell outta town. I don't think we should draft Gallery though. He's be an excellent way to bait a really favorable tradedown. But then we have the chance of losing Taylor to the Lions. Who knows!

[QUOTE=skinsfanthru&thru]in the story by the washington post it didn't make any mention of the Redskins trading the #5 overall pick with samuels, it just says samuels may be traded. Samuels is still a young tackle with probowl talent and he's got quite a bit of trade value in him. If we can trade both him and Gardner(filling two holes for the raiders), why not trade them(plus a future pick or 2 if needed) to the raiders for the #2 pick, draft gallery, and still use our #5 pick to select taylor, Winslow, or trade down for d-line help. This would free up a tremendous amount of future cap space and give us a player who is probably a better tackle than Samuels and cheaper and younger. With Samuels and Gardner traded and with the cutting of trotter, moore, and trung, would we have the room to sign both(or all our picks if we trade down)? I've liked Samuels but his cap #'s are way too high and if we can replace him with a better player for less money and still keep our pick, why not do this? plus hasn't bugel been drooling over Gallery this spring? Man I can't wait until next saturday.[/QUOTE]

So if we keep the 5th (maybe get Taylor!), add Gallery and save money by letting Samuels go I suppose I could live with that. However, Samuels, while he's not been the same player the last couple of years, is a proven NFL pro-bowl player. With poor protection schemes, injuries, and having to play next to a rookie for much of last year the past two seasons have not been great for SAmuels. But what has Gallery done in the NFL? I'd hate for the Skins to get him and then a couple of years later hear Gallery and Tony Mandarich mentioned in the same sentence.

I might be the only one who thinks this....

But Samuels and Garnder together would be worth the 2nd pick to the Raiders... no need for a pick from next year.

They need a Reciever opposite Porter to replace Rice and Brown... and they desperately need OL help...

Just a straight up, Samuels and Gardner for the #2 seems fair enough. Both have Pro-Bowl talent. If adding anything... make it Trotter, and grab a 4th rounder from them too...

Then, we'd have Gallery at #2 (a BEAST that is younger, smarter, and a harder worker than Samuels), Taylor at #5 for the D AND cap space freedom the next 2 years... then we'd be looking GOOD for a FEW of years... not just one

this deal makes sense also with the reasoning of why not get something for samuels because we know there isn't much chance of him restructuring his deal this year or next and would likely be cut because of that next year. This provides us an oppurtunity to replace him with an awesome tackle for a lower salary and thus a better chance to also resign smoot next year or sometime this year. And I agree Hail_to_the_Redskins, the trade of Gardner and Samuels is a straight up fair trade if not more in favor of the Raiders. I mean that's practically trading a high first round and a decent 2nd round pick for one high first rounder. Maybe we could even get a 3rd or 4th round pick to come our way out of this as well. If this deal does have our 1st round pick involved then I say no deal, but from what the report read and the talent on the table, I don't think our 1st rounder will come into the picture.

plus remember gallery's importance when Ramsey is the starting QB again and is needed to guard the blind side.

I'm an Iowa fan, and Gallery is awesome, but what the skins need to do if anything is draft down. If they draft down they can get somebody like Udeze or T. Harris and a later round draft pick.

FO is Extremely Idiotic 2 trade away Samuel now
 

IMHO: the FO (Gibbs + Danny JB + BN Cerrato) are Extremely Idiotic to trade away Samuel.

What we should trade is the slow-footed Jansen, then draft Gallery. Jansen has been outmaneuvered by faster DE time & time again. Remember if Brunell starts, then Jansen is the blindside protector.

But then again this FO (Gibbs + Danny JB + BN Cerrato) has been making some idiotic moves such as throwing away the all importance Draft-Picks, such as (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th)-rounds, as if they are leper.

Keep in mind,
1.} this 2004 Bumper_crop_Draft is deep & loaded with talents.
2.} Redskins 2003 players had been under performing under Spurier_Inferior-Coaching-Staffs, thus Redskins 2003 players trade values are not as high as they should be.

3.} Most of 2004 available Cap space has been eaten by Brunell & Portis.
4.} FP should keep the talented players for 1 more year to raise their trade values.

5.} I thought I heard Samuel said he is excited & wants to be the Gibbs—Redskins core player for years to come, in time Samuel will be willing to Re-structure his contract again for the 3rd—TIME.
6.} The short-sighted tendency of FO (Gibbs + Danny JB + BN Cerrato) in win now lose later mentality.

The top notch Front Office must be able to anticipate an upcoming Bumper_crop_Draft and stock-piles draft-picks like Belichick-Patriot.

I'd take Jansen any day of the week over Samuels and I've seen samuels beaten more than I have Jansen. As well as that Jansen hasn't missed a start has he? while recently Samuels has had ankle problems as well as shoulder or chest problems didn't he? Jansen has been the most consistently good lineman we've had in years.

[QUOTE=Hail to the Redskins]I might be the only one who thinks this....

But Samuels and Garnder together would be worth the 2nd pick to the Raiders... no need for a pick from next year.
[/QUOTE]

This makes sense to you because you are a Redskins fan. Come on man!
If you were the Raiders would you trade the #2 pick for Samuels (and his crazy 2004 salary), Gardner and even Trotter? Of course not.
You have to offer something good in this years deep and talented 2004 draft as well. The Raiders will not bite unless you throw in a semi-decent first round pick. The #5 pick is too much, but they will want something in the 10-18 range ...
Also remember Al Davis was burned by the Redskins in the Jay Schroeder for Jim Lachey trade. That had to be the worst trade ever for the Raiders and Al Davis. Al Davis may not want to trade Gallery to the Redskins and have him become another Jim Lachey.

[QUOTE=Defensewins]This makes sense to you because you are a Redskins fan. Come on man!
If you were the Raiders would you trade the #2 pick for Samuels (and his crazy 2004 salary), Gardner and even Trotter? Of course not.
You have to offer something good in this years deep and talented 2004 draft as well. The Raiders will not bite unless you throw in a decent first rong pick. The #5 pick is too much, but they will want something ...
Also remember Al Davis was burned by the Redskins in the Jay Schroeder for Jim Lachey trade. That had to be the worst trade ever for the Raiders and Al Davis. Al Davis may not want to trade Gallery to the Redskins and have him become another Jim Lachey.[/QUOTE]
Unless Chris Samuels becomes Jim Lachey - then the circle of life is complete.

[QUOTE=BrudLee]Unless Chris Samuels becomes Jim Lachey - then the circle of life is complete.[/QUOTE]
You are old enough to have seen Jim Lachey play. There is no way Samuels will ever be as good as Jim Lachey. They are both excellent pass blockers, but Lachey is twice the run blocker Samuels is or will ever be. With all the amazing physical tools Samuels has been blessed with, I have never seen Samules get angry and pancake someone. He just kind of plays good enough to get by.

Agreed Defensewins, but that was one of the reasons Lachey made it to Washington. Al Davis didn't want an offensive line built for running, he wanted the long ball. He thought he could fill the slot with a technician that could buy Schrader the time to go deep. If the Raiders are looking for a pass blocker, then a deal makes more sense for them, since (last season not withstanding), Samuels is a great pass blocker.

Bugel and Gibbs may get more out of Samuels than any of us suspect right now. Also, I vaguely remember reading somewhere that Robert Gallery is one of these high moral character guys and somewhere who is 100% motivated and team-oriented ... I could see why Gibbs would be interested.

Gotta agree with Ghost. With a proven line coach like Bugel in town, maybe he sees something in Samuels that leads him to belive he's easily replaced. Or maybe it's a lot of talk to get Samuels agent to the table. Regardless, in two weeks if we have Gallery and Taylor, then great. If all we have is a rookie Tackle then we're in some serious trouble.

The skins are not going to do anything that Joe Gibbs doesn't bless. And it is possible that they could be going after Galley. Joe built his champs from great o lines and using many other adequate players working in unison ex. Neil Olkewicz. Let Joe work his magic.

the more I think about it the more Galley makes sense, guess we'll have to wait and see

Hey guys,
I've read what everybody has to say and they are all valid points. This is the first that I've heard about a Gallery pick. I am a Samuels fan as much as anybody, but there may be some merit to this. Yes, we're giving up a great tackle for another great (although unproven) tackle, but Gallery's cap numbers will be much better. As for Gardner, we would get something pretty big in return for Samuels, right? How about a disgruntled and very talented Dennis Northcutt, along with...say...a 2nd round draft pick? I'm in agreeance with most of you that our defensive weekness is staring us straight in the face and that our pick should be used for that. I don't think that Tommie Harris is the answer, but Sean Taylor is head and shoulders above the rest. Taylor is my pick at #5.

I think if you look at what Parcells did for Flozel Adams this year, it is clear to me that Bugel can do the same for Samuels. Samuels clearly has all the ability, he just needs to bring in out. A lot of it is confidense. Any athlete knows that is vital and can make a world of difference.

I have zero doubts in Samuels' ability, it's his giant cap hits that are a concern.

Bugel believes samuel's is the good's, and he should know, but cap wise it may be the best route to take, but I am not giving up a #5 to do it, if we can't get a resonable trade done to get Gallery then we can wait it out, if Bugel can get Samuels back in the pro-bowl he will have a lot of trade value next year.

Im surprised that with all of this talk about getting Gallery, and about freeing cap space no one has mentioned how much cap space Gallery would take up. The second pick in the draft commands a hefty pay check. We traded up to get Sameuls with the third pick in the draft. Charles Rogers, the second pick in last years draft, received a 9.1 million dollar signing bonus and is due for a 5.6 million dollar bonus this season. The base salaries arent that much, around a million, but its still a lot of money. Carson Palmer collected the second most amount of money of anyone in the league last year and he didnt even play.

Granted, those numbers are still cheaper that Samuels, but if Gallery played under Snyder he would probably ask him to keep redoing his contract as well. Trading Samuels just buys us time.

time and cap space are two very important things though in the NFL today. If this trade can get done without us trading away our 1st rounder, so we can still select Taylor or trade down for d-line help, then I'm all for it. But if it involves our pick then thats too much even though it'd be about a 4-5 million cap space created after the trade and then signing of Gallery. I think the freed up cap space goes up to another million or so next year if this trade happens and another 3 or 4 in the season after next. Plus when he is considered better than Boseli was when he was healthy with Jacksonville, you have to make the trade if its for the right price cuz as good as Samuels had been before the past 2 seasons, Boseli was arguably(sp?) the best tackle in football.