Re: WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements
 

I didn't know much about Branch until the other day I looked at ESPN and they had a story on Branch's workout and dude is a MONSTER !!!! Him next to Griffin should prove to be a good look for the interior D-Line. I'm also all for trading down but I think D Line is where the Skins should look this draft. If a kick ass deal comes to trade down then I say do it because you can definitely find a couple of pretty decent players later on, I understand that Branch could turn into a bust at #6 as much as Lester Washington-Jenkins could at #180 but I think that man needs to be in a Skins uni next year.

I'm sure someone is going to correct me on Washingtons later pick # but you get my point.

I'm all for London Fletcher too as long as it's not one of those record deals. I swear I hope the Giants feel like Pierce is as expendable as GW did because I'd love to have him back with the Skins. I doubt it will happen but it's cool to dream of the Skins correcting THAT mistake.

Re: WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements
 

The more I hear about this the better...get fletcher and clements, draft branch...BOOM we have depth at every position except safety. If we pick up smoot, then springs can shift there...if not, then we can draft one late in the draft...heck if we get a fifth rounder out of Arch, we can use that.

Re: WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements
 

[quote=AlvinWalton'sNeckBrace;277991]The more I hear about this the better...get fletcher and clements, draft branch...BOOM we have depth at every position except safety. If we pick up smoot, then springs can shift there...if not, then we can draft one late in the draft...heck if we get a fifth rounder out of Arch, we can use that.[/quote]

I wish arch could be gone but i don't think there is any way possible. We can't trade him b/c no one will accept his contract unless he restructures (highly unlikely) or we can't release him b/c of the cap hit. He'll be there and will still be the most expensive back up in league history.

Re: WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements
 

[quote=JankySpanky80;278000]I wish arch could be gone but i don't think there is any way possible. We can't trade him b/c no one will accept his contract unless he restructures (highly unlikely) or we can't release him b/c of the cap hit. He'll be there and will still be the most expensive back up in league history.[/quote]


I meant if the Bears rumor was true...but yeah, I expect him to be here

Re: WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements
 

the thing about archuleta he is not a bad player he just played worse this year than the rest of our defense the contract is way too much but he will be better this year he and sean taylor will be one of the most feared tandoms in the nfl

NATE CLEMENTS
CARLOS ROGERS
SEAN TAYLOR
ALAN BRANCH
LONDON FLECTHER
MARCUS WASHINGTON
ANDRE CARTER
ADAM ARCHULETA
CORNELIUS GRIFFIN
SHAWN SPRINGS

EVERY ONE OF THOSE GUYS (except rogers) has had a pro bowl season or made it to the pro bowl

now this defense will be improved in 07 greg williams will not settle for anything less than top 10 or better

Re: WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements
 

[quote=JankySpanky80;278000]I wish arch could be gone but i don't think there is any way possible. We can't trade him b/c no one will accept his contract unless he restructures (highly unlikely) or we can't release him b/c of the cap hit. He'll be there and will still be the most expensive back up in league history.[/quote]

He [I]can[/I] be released and we [I]can[/I] absorb the hit.

Just watch.

Re: WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements
 

[quote=Mattyk72;278007]He [I]can[/I] be released and we [I]can[/I] absorb the hit.

Just watch.[/quote]


Too much dead cap to absorb in 08'. He will be in uniform for 07'.

My call.

Re: WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements
 

[quote=JDALY27;278012]Too much dead cap to absorb in 08'. He will be in uniform for 07'.

My call.[/quote]


hopefully by uniform you mean concession salesman uniform

Re: WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements
 

[quote=AlvinWalton'sNeckBrace;278013]hopefully by uniform you mean concession salesman uniform[/quote]


Who should replace him?

Our entire D went from 5th to 9th to 31st!!!!!!

Why is that guys??? Not AA.

Re: WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements
 

of course its not all his fault...but the guy certainly didn't help be getting burned so much...he's a run stuffer, he can't cover....we're going to either have to replace him via free agency, or use a low draft pick on a guy

Re: WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements
 

[quote=JDALY27;278012]Too much dead cap to absorb in 08'. He will be in uniform for 07'.

My call.[/quote]

Ok based on what numbers?

Re: WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements
 

[quote=Mattyk72;278019]Ok based on what numbers?[/quote]


Didn't we already have this conversation? You were the one that told us all about the dead hit. It was a big time number in the millions in 08'. I'm sure you remember.......

Re: WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements
 

[quote=Mattyk72;278019]Ok based on what numbers?[/quote]

Adam Archuleta will count $2.428 million against the cap in 2007 and is also due a $5 million option bonus. If the Redskins cut him immediately following the season, there would be a $4 million cap hit because of the prorated signing bonus he received last year; however, there would no longer be a salary to account for. If Archuleta is let go early and given a “June 1” designation, then he wouldn’t be paid the $5 million option bonus, and three quarters of that $4 million remaining in the prorated signing bonus would be moved to 2008.

Dead cap space is something else that a lot of fans cry about but don’t really think about until they see/hear what the amount is. This year, Washington is right around $16,507,000, and this number doesn’t carry over. As of now, the 2007 dead cap is a little over half a million dollars, so there is plenty of room to work with since the Redskins are accustomed to carrying at least $14 million on the books over the past few years.

There are other changes that may be made to free up more cap space next year. Carter, Archuleta, Lloyd, and Randle El all signed similar contracts, so if Carter doesn’t work out then he could be cut and there will be some more cap space.

Re: WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;278005]the thing about archuleta he is not a bad player he just played worse this year than the rest of our defense the contract is way too much but he will be better this year he and sean taylor will be one of the most feared tandoms in the nfl[/quote]

i doubt it, he can't cover anyone.

as for why our D dropped from 3 to 9 to 31:

after 04 pierce/smoot leave, replaced by marshall/rogers, downgrades. holdman starts some games... oops.

after 05 clark/stoutmire/harris/bowen/lavar/clemons all leave, prioleau hits IR 1 play into the season, every player that was depth here became starters for other teams, and none of them were adequately replaced (lavar -> holdman was a HUGE downgrade, during 05 while the skins won 5 straight, lavar started every game). springs and griffin had some injury issues as well.

i mean, it's not rocket science. if you let good players go and replace them with crappier ones, and neglect ensuring adequate depth, your team isn't going to be very good.

Re: WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements
 

adam archuleta can't cover true neither can roy williams ok this is what the skins should do keep arch near the line of scrimmage that is where he is most effective and switch springs to safety to rotate on run and pass downs and sign nate clements to start opposite carlos rogers sign fletcher move marshall to weak side to groom rocky mcintosh and if we dont sign kris jenkins draft alan branch if we do sign kris jenkins draft gaines adams

Re: WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements
 

[QUOTE=JDALY27;278026]Adam Archuleta will count $2.428 million against the cap in 2007 and is also due a $5 million option bonus. If the Redskins cut him immediately following the season, there would be a $4 million cap hit because of the prorated signing bonus he received last year; however, there would no longer be a salary to account for. If Archuleta is let go early and given a “June 1” designation, then he wouldn’t be paid the $5 million option bonus, and three quarters of that $4 million remaining in the prorated signing bonus would be moved to 2008.

Dead cap space is something else that a lot of fans cry about but don’t really think about until they see/hear what the amount is. This year, Washington is right around $16,507,000, and this number doesn’t carry over. As of now, the 2007 dead cap is a little over half a million dollars, so there is plenty of room to work with since the Redskins are accustomed to carrying at least $14 million on the books over the past few years.

There are other changes that may be made to free up more cap space next year. Carter, Archuleta, Lloyd, and Randle El all signed similar contracts, so if Carter doesn’t work out then he could be cut and there will be some more cap space.[/QUOTE]

Huh? Not quibbling with your numbers but it easier to simply state what it would cost to cut him at different times. The above is wholly confusing, Where is Schneed or Canuck?

Re: WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements
 

[QUOTE=EARTHQUAKE2689;278072]adam archuleta can't cover true neither can roy williams ok this is what the skins should do keep arch near the line of scrimmage that is where he is most effective and switch springs to safety to rotate on run and pass downs and sign nate clements to start opposite carlos rogers sign fletcher move marshall to weak side to groom rocky mcintosh and if we dont sign kris jenkins draft alan branch if we do sign kris jenkins draft gaines adams[/QUOTE]

Row Williams blows at coverage but AA looks even worse. I don't think he is naturally worse but I think our scheme is far more complicated and Arch had real trouble ficguring it out. Plus the whole secondary coaching fiasco probably screwde him pretty good. I think AA can play in this league I just don't think it can work here.

Re: WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements
 

yeah but what will we do with him let his uniform stay clean and keep paying him millions to model our jersey

Re: WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements
 

so you move arch near the line, you only have 3 guys back and so they go 5 wide and you're screwed. if you can't cover you'll get burnt, a lot. there's no reason to move springs to safety since he's still the best corner the skins have on their roster.

Re: WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements
 

i am not saying we should but there is MAJOR TALK OF HIM moving to safety next year and if we sign nate clements or asante samuel i thinnk everyone would feel better about him moving to that position and arch used to play linebacker in college why not put him back there at weak side he would go from a slow safety to a fast linebacker look at thomas davis on the panthers worked for him and why not try it our weak side linebacker right now is complete crap

Re: WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements
 

[quote=Mattyk72;278019]Ok based on what numbers?[/quote]We could cut Archuleta this offseason and take the 7 million dead cap, but we would likely be unable to sign Clements or Fletcher in free agency (We have about 2 million to work with right now, cutting Arch would put us 5 million over--its just not plausible--we could get under but it would take a whole lot of cuts/restructuring). Personally, I'd rather have all three than none of them.

Re: WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements
 

If we were to sign Clements and Smoot, they could be our starters at Corner, make Rogers our nickel and move Springs to Free Safety. That would be one hell of a secondary!

Re: WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements
 

My bad, I missed this discussion on Archuleta and the cap.

GTripp is right, Archuleta is currently on the books for $2.4 million in 2007. If we cut him as a prior-to-June 1 cut, we'd eat $9 million in deadcap space in 2007. That $9 million represents an incremental cap hit of $6.6 million above his current 2007 figure of $2.4 million.

BUT... Matty is right. If we want to cut Arch, there is a way. Cut him as a post-June 1 cut, and we'll reduce his cap figure from $2.4 million down to $1.8 million in 2007, creating $600K in space this year. The downside to that is we'd have to eat $7.1 million in deadcap space in 2008, which represents $3.3 million more than the $3.8 million he's on the books for in 2008. The team could easily restructure other contracts in 2008 to make that work.

I think Archuleta is as good as gone before this season comes. The dollars just make cents (nyuk nyuk nyuk).

JDALY, your numbers are off because you're counting Archuleta's upcoming $5 million bonus payment as an Option Bonus. For all intents and purposes, it isn't. That $5 million bonus was written into his contract as guaranteed money, along with the other $5 million he got on the day he signed. All in all, it's a $10 million signing bonus. We have to eat all $10 million throughout the course of his contract.