Oakland Raiders Sign Nnamdi Asomugha to 3 Year Contract with $28.5M Guaranteed
Jim Trotter of Sports Illustrated reported the Oakland Raiders completed another one of its offseason goals by signing All-Pro Cornerback Nnamdi Asomugha to a six-year contract that has at least $28.5 Million guaranteed in the first two years (2009 and 2010 seasons).
Asomugha has the option to void the agreement after the second season if the Raiders fail to guarantee him $16.8 million for the 2011 season or the franchise tag for a quarterback, whichever is higher.
Specific details have yet to be released and there is no word on how the remaining three years of the deal will be paid.
This crucial signing, along with the Raiders signing Shane Lechler and Chris Johnson, provides further evidence that Oakland Raiders owner, Al Davis, is intent on building a championship team.
Asomugha's signing was the team's top priority for the offseason as the All-Pro cornerback's style of play is perfectly suited for the team's defensive scheme.
Opposing quarterbacks rarely throw to the receiver covered by Asomugha which allows the free safety to provide double coverage to the other side. It remains to be seen how the Raiders scheme will change or if new defensive coordinator John Marshall will have better success in keeping the Raider defenders in their positions.
One this is for certain, signing Asomugha to a multi-year agreement will remove the stigma of the franchise tag, show the players the team is committed to winning and will maintain continuity in the defensive backfield.
Additionally, like Senior Writer Jeff Little identified in his February 15, 2009 article, signing Asomugha avoids replaying the scenario the team experienced with Charles Woodson a few years ago.
While an upgrade is needed at defensive tackle and the SAM linebacker, signing Asomugha certainly goes a long way to shoring up the Raiders defense. Regardless of the steep price, this signing continues an extremely positive off-season for the Raiders.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?