Potential on-field chemsitry issues aside; if you can get Samuel for a 5th round pick as Schultz surmised you don't pass that up.
At the end of the day Samuel makes the Falcon defense better and it isn't a long term commitment for the Falcons. It isn't terribly cheap but Samuel is an elilte level cover corner.
If this deal is indeed something a long the lines of a 5th or 4th round pick I'll take it. I'd rather rent Samuel for 2-years than draft someone that has a 50/50 shot of making the roster and less than 50% shot at making an impact for the Falcons.
All good points dirty, but I highlighted the real key issue.
Does Samuel make the Falcons defense better? Sure, he is a better cornerback than anybody we have on the roster. So on the surface, the answer appears to be less.
But if you keep all three players (Grimes, Dunta, & Samuel), someone is going to have to play in the slot. And if they are not good in the slot. Let's say for instance, you move Grimes to the slot. And he is a significantly diminished player, and the dropoff from that player today in the current role to them in the slot role, could essentially cancel any improvement that Samuel adds.
So if Option B is to dump either Grimes or Dunta, and from what I understand Dunta's restructured deal is such that it means he's unlikely to be dumped, and given that Grimes is playing under a 1-yr. franchise tender, makes him a lot easier to move. So if you just wind up swapping Grimes for Samuel, what have you really done? Samuel is better than Grimes, but not by a huge degree. You're basically talking about dumping the 9th best corner in the league for the 3rd best corner in the league, as compared to if you were getting rid of Dunta (say the 30th bester corner)
It's similar to the Julio Jones-Michael Jenkins swap. Yes, Jones is an infinitely better player than Jenkins, but when you in fact gauge how much he improved the team, it's not by any significant degree. Sure, Jones had 5 or so games that were better than anything Jenkins did in 7 years as a Falcon. But in the other 11 or so games, he did almost nothing. And at least in the case of Jenkins he was giving you something for those 11 games, as well as something similar for the remaining 5 games. So when you take Jenkins 16 games as a whole vs. Jones 16 games as a whole, they come out about even. Yes, I realize that Jones did not play in all 16 games, and that's part of the problem. Because if he had actually produced in the 3.75 games he missed, then he probably would have come out ahead.