Skins interested in Gallery?/Samuels trade talks *Merged*

[MTK]

By Len Pasquarelli
ESPN.com
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/column...len&id=1779085
With the news this week that New York Giants general manager Ernie Accorsi phoned San Diego Chargers 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, Tom Brady of New England, won two of the last three Super Bowl games and Brad Johnson, 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 safest 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.



Gallery is the only sure bet left tackle prospect this year.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 Jonathan Ogden of Baltimore, Seattle's Walter Jones or Orlando Pace of St. Louis, he possesses a remarkable upside. And Gallery has been well-schooled by Kirk Ferentz, the Iowa head coach and former Cleveland Browns 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 Kyle Turley have been to at least one Pro Bowl game. Tony Boselli, 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. Houston Texans tailback Domanick Davis 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 Jordan Gross, 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 St. Louis Rams 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, hasn't transpired, during the current free agency period. Just three left tackles of note -- Todd Steussie (of Carolina), Derrick Deese (San Francisco) and Ephraim Salaam (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 Chad Clifton, 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 Oakland Raiders 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.



Yeah, we know, the Redskins already have a top-flight left tackle in Chris Samuels. 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.



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 LaVar Arrington bit on, is seen by the Redskins now in a different light.



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 Champ Bailey. 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.



What the Redskins would prefer to do is cut a deal, perhaps using wide receiver Rod Gardner 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.



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.

[Cush]

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

[Paintrain]

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.

[MTK]

More fuel for the Samuels/Gallery rumors

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Apr9.html

[joecrisp]

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.

[Riggo44]

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.

I think your right! I really wouldn't care to much if Samule got traded. We could really use that kind of cap space!

[Gmanc711]

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.

[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.

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

[skinsfanthru&thru]

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.

[skinsfanthru&thru]

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

[GibbssbbiG]

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.

[skinsfanthru&thru]

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.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[BrudLee]

Originally Posted by 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.

Unless Chris Samuels becomes Jim Lachey - then the circle of life is complete.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by BrudLee

Unless Chris Samuels becomes Jim Lachey - then the circle of life is complete.

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.