Sometimes Its Who You Keep Not Who You Sign

[44ever]

Clark's Story Worth Remembering

[steveo395]

Its a good thing we let him go and made Adam Archuletta the highest paid safety in the league. That was a good move.

[The Goat]

... don't get me started.

[SmootSmack]

I wonder if the Giants' message boards talk about losing Ryan Clark as well?

We made a mistake, it happens. There are plenty of people we've let go of that have amounted to nothing as well.

Nice piece though, thanks for posting the link 44

[44ever]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I wonder if the Giants' message boards talk about losing Ryan Clark as well?

We made a mistake, it happens. There are plenty of people we've let go of that have amounted to nothing as well.

Nice piece though, thanks for posting the link 44

oh I bet the Gmen are talking the same. The difference is he really wanted to be a Redskins. And you're right it's a hindsight 20/20

but it reminds me of how important this offseason will be as far as how we evaluate our players. Example: Hopefully Hall and Rogers will not automatically be made into a choice between the two of them, but possibly seen as a compliment to each other.

Hall has also stated he would like to remain a Redskins. I would like to see that as well.

Entertaining the idea of losing Moss is disturbing. I think ARE if utilized correctly would be a great asset.

Hoping there is some flexability and forsight in the FO this year
Just some things that came to mind after reading this article.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by 44ever

oh I bet the Gmen are talking the same. The difference is he really wanted to be a Redskins. And you're right it's a hindsight 20/20

but it reminds me of how important this offseason will be as far as how we evaluate our players. Example: Hopefully Hall and Rogers will not automatically be made into a choice between the two of them, but possibly seen as a compliment to each other.

Hall has also stated he would like to remain a Redskins. I would like to see that as well.

Entertaining the idea of losing Moss is disturbing. I think ARE if utilized correctly would be a great asset.

Hoping there is some flexability and forsight in the FO this year
Just some things that came to mind after reading this article.

I'd rather lose Moss one year too early than one year too late.

[44ever]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I'd rather lose Moss one year too early than one year too late.

What do you mean by that Smoot?

[Skinny Tee]

Originally Posted by 44ever

Clark's Story Worth Remembering

I do agree that it was blunderous to let a guy go who hits that hard and brings enthusiasm to the defense.

But being that he wound up on a Super Bowl bound team shouldn't make it worse. He isn't the best safety on their team and he is getting recognition becuase no other teams are playing right now.

Was it a mistake letting him go for Archuleta?...Hell yes...but it doesn't make it worse now that he's on a Super Bowl team. We let Dockery go, for good financial reason, and him being on the paltry bills doesn't seem to bother people.


Letting Clark go was a dumb player personnel decision but it shouldn't matter now just becuase he is playing in the Super Bowl...unless you just want to rub it in Snyderato's face...then I guess it would be notable.

[SouperMeister]

I was at that Philly game where Clark sealed the game with an INT in the last minute. The thing that was especially stupid about letting Clark go was that he wasn't asking for much, and he wanted to stay. Of the defensive players at that time, he was the only one who had a close relationship with Sean Taylor, when Taylor was still a "wild child". The Clark hits that the article describes (Welker and McGahee) were two of the hardest hits that I saw this entire season. They were very reminiscent of Taylor's, something that was sorely lacking this past season on our defense. Sad to say, but we haven't had a true enforcer in the secondary since Taylor died - I'm still waiting for Landry to become that intimidating presense.

[The Goat]

[QUOTE=SouperMeister;523881]I was at that Philly game where Clark sealed the game with an INT in the last minute. The thing that was especially stupid about letting Clark go was that he wasn't asking for much, and he wanted to stay. Of the defensive players at that time, he was the only one who had a close relationship with Sean Taylor, when Taylor was still a "wild child". The Clark hits that the article describes (Welker and McGahee) were two of the hardest hits that I saw this entire season. They were very reminiscent of Taylor's, something that was sorely lacking this past season on our defense. Sad to say, but we haven't had a true enforcer in the secondary since Taylor died - I'm still waiting for Landry to become that intimidating presense.[/QUOTE]

Ditto. Ditto. Ditto.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Allegedly, we let Dockery go because he was asking for an unreasonable amount of money and we didnt have the cap space to compete with other offers he was getting. Thats understandable. (Even though i think Dockery wasnt asking us for nearly as much as he got from buffalo. If management here had any forsight at all, they would have given dockery a new contract and then cut Randy Thomas when his contract became to expensive. Instead, they decided to put their money in a guy who was already over 30 at the time, instead of one who was barely 26... but i digress)

When we let Clark go, he was a very good starting safety asking for a very reasonable amount of money. we had the cap space, but we let him go to sign Archuletta to a deal where his garaunteed money was more than the total contract money it would have cost to keep Clark.

If we had kept Clark, not only would we have not drafted Archuletta, but we also wouldnt have needed to draft Landry either. So thats not one, but TWO huge contracts we had to sign because we didnt pay Clark his worth. Those two contracts (and draft pick in the case of Landry) could have been used to upgrade other areas of our team. At the time, DL was a very pressing need and it still is now.

If we had kept Clark, we could have signed one of the many DT/DEs available in place of Archuletta) and drafted another in 2007 place of Landry. Taking it a step further, with our DL situation pretty much set, we wouldnt have traded next years 2nd rounder and 2010s 6th rounder to Miami last year for Jason Taylor when Phillip Daniels got hurt. We also wouldnt have traded a 7th to the Vikings for James.

Entering this years draft, our DL would be set and we would have picks in rounds 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7.

Some can try to overlook snubbing ryan clark as being just one small mistake, but the way I see it, the trickle down effect was huge. Even if we chose to address different areas in free agency and the draft, our team would be stronger today.

This team has shown over the past decade that it overvalues other teams' free agents and our own old, decling veterans, while undervaluing our homegrown young guys. This team would be much younger, stronger, and in better salary cap shape right now if we had decided to pay guys like Antonio Pierce, Dockery, and Clark to stick around. All of them were the definition of "core skins" at the time and were offering us a hometown discount to stay. instead, we let them go and replaced them by signing older FA Vets, trading picks away for older vets (Kendall to replace Dockery), and spending high draft picks to replace them.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Allegedly, we let Dockery go because he was asking for an unreasonable amount of money and we didnt have the cap space to compete with other offers he was getting. Thats understandable. (Even though i think Dockery wasnt asking us for nearly as much as he got from buffalo. If management here had any forsight at all, they would have given dockery a new contract and then cut Randy Thomas when his contract became to expensive. Instead, they decided to put their money in a guy who was already over 30 at the time, instead of one who was barely 26... but i digress)

Dockery was asking for a shitload of money, if I recall correctly it was around a $17 million signing bonus. Interesting point about Thomas.

When we let Clark go, he was a very good starting safety asking for a very reasonable amount of money. we had the cap space, but we let him go to sign Archuletta to a deal where his garaunteed money was more than the total contract money it would have cost to keep Clark.

Who'd have known Archuleta would have been so terrible. But Williams insisted, I thought Arch was overrated but my gosh he was terrible. Even Gibbs, who could find good in just about everyone, thought he was a waste

If we had kept Clark, not only would we have not drafted Archuletta, but we also wouldnt have needed to draft Landry either. So thats not one, but TWO huge contracts we had to sign because we didnt pay Clark his worth. Those two contracts (and draft pick in the case of Landry) could have been used to upgrade other areas of our team. At the time, DL was a very pressing need and it still is now.

If we had kept Clark, we could have signed one of the many DT/DEs available in place of Archuletta) and drafted another in 2007 place of Landry. Taking it a step further, with our DL situation pretty much set, we wouldnt have traded next years 2nd rounder and 2010s 6th rounder to Miami last year for Jason Taylor when Phillip Daniels got hurt. We also wouldnt have traded a 7th to the Vikings for James.

Entering this years draft, our DL would be set and we would have picks in rounds 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7.

Some can try to overlook snubbing ryan clark as being just one small mistake, but the way I see it, the trickle down effect was huge. Even if we chose to address different areas in free agency and the draft, our team would be stronger today.

This team has shown over the past decade that it overvalues other teams' free agents and our own old, decling veterans, while undervaluing our homegrown young guys. This team would be much younger, stronger, and in better salary cap shape right now if we had decided to pay guys like Antonio Pierce, Dockery, and Clark to stick around. All of them were the definition of "core skins" at the time and were offering us a hometown discount to stay. instead, we let them go and replaced them by signing older FA Vets, trading picks away for older vets (Kendall to replace Dockery), and spending high draft picks to replace them.

Fair point

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Dockery was asking for a shitload of money, if I recall correctly it was around a $17 million signing bonus. Interesting point about Thomas.



Who'd have known Archuleta would have been so terrible. But Williams insisted, I thought Arch was overrated but my gosh he was terrible. Even Gibbs, who could find good in just about everyone, thought he was a waste



Fair point

I was excited about AA at the time, but evidently people who know more about football than me thought it was a horrible move and that he was a bad fit for our system. That point aside, everyone who had half a brain realized that we were giving him waaaaaay to big of a contract. his potential as a SS aside, he was just coming off a back injury and his own team didnt want him. He only got sniffs from a couple other teams and we give him the biggest contract ever for a safety?... we can blame Williams for wanting AA in the first place, but i'm pretty sure Williams had nothing to do with the obscene 30M/10Mgaraunteed we gave AA to sign. I place that squarely on our FO.

As far as Dockery goes, I seem to remember the skins and dockery were both squabbling over a difference in garaunteed money, but Dock wasnt even asking for more than 12M or so, which was entirely reasonable at the the time.... but once Dock hit free agency (where there were very few free agent guards available and the cap had just risen enormously), he ended up getting well more than he had ever dreamed - over 18M garaunteed if i remember correctly. If the skins had judged the market correctly, i am positive they would have locked up dockery when they had the chance.

My point is unless we're dealing with someone who is clearly being unreasonable, we should work to extend our own young guys when we can - if theyre good, of course.

For example, I think we should give Hall his 16M garaunteed before he has the opportunity to taste the market. He will make over 20 if he hits the open market. Is that alot? - yes. But he'll be the #2corner available and anyone who doesnt want to give that oakland dude 30M+ garaunteed would gladly pay Hall 20-22.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

When we let Clark go, he was a very good starting safety asking for a very reasonable amount of money. we had the cap space, but we let him go to sign Archuletta to a deal where his garaunteed money was more than the total contract money it would have cost to keep Clark.

If we had kept Clark, not only would we have not drafted Archuletta, but we also wouldnt have needed to draft Landry either. So thats not one, but TWO huge contracts we had to sign because we didnt pay Clark his worth. Those two contracts (and draft pick in the case of Landry) could have been used to upgrade other areas of our team. At the time, DL was a very pressing need and it still is now.

If we had kept Clark, we could have signed one of the many DT/DEs available in place of Archuletta) and drafted another in 2007 place of Landry. Taking it a step further, with our DL situation pretty much set, we wouldnt have traded next years 2nd rounder and 2010s 6th rounder to Miami last year for Jason Taylor when Phillip Daniels got hurt. We also wouldnt have traded a 7th to the Vikings for James.

Entering this years draft, our DL would be set and we would have picks in rounds 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7.

Some can try to overlook snubbing ryan clark as being just one small mistake, but the way I see it, the trickle down effect was huge. Even if we chose to address different areas in free agency and the draft, our team would be stronger today.

This team has shown over the past decade that it overvalues other teams' free agents and our own old, decling veterans, while undervaluing our homegrown young guys. This team would be much younger, stronger, and in better salary cap shape right now if we had decided to pay guys like Antonio Pierce, Dockery, and Clark to stick around. All of them were the definition of "core skins" at the time and were offering us a hometown discount to stay. instead, we let them go and replaced them by signing older FA Vets, trading picks away for older vets (Kendall to replace Dockery), and spending high draft picks to replace them.

Some really good points here dude and as unpopular as it is to say around these parts, this is yet another indication how Joe Gibbs' 4 years probably set us back at least 8. In his 4 years as team president, the triumverate of Gibbs, Cerrato and Snyder made our core much older, more stale and less cap solvent than the team he inherited in '04. As a result in '08 and seemingly in '09 we won't be players in the free agent market.

As you mentioned, roster holes created or not addressed during his tenure have forced us to address roles that we got worse at with their replacements (more on that in a minute) AND we don't have an adequate number of picks to replenish what we need.

3 of Gibbs/Vinny/Snyder's moves had a huge detrimental effect on our current roster and will linger for years.

1. Antonio Pierce-Biggest blunder of the Gibbs era outside of Mark Brunell. To let a young MLB entering his prime go to a division rival is unacceptable. Not only have we seen Pierce blossom into a Pro Bowler and win a SB in NY while we wasted 2 years on Lemar Marshall, we've also created a hole within a hole with Fletcher. Yes, he's been great since he got here but he's going to be 35 next year which means a high draft pick or significant money is going to have to be spent within the next 2 years which wouldn't have been necessary.

2. Fred Smoot-He was a much better CB his first time around than he is now. Simply re-signing him would have allowed us to address what was a pressing matter then, still is now and likely will be for the foreseeable future-rushing the passer. With Smoot and Springs settled at CB we would have had our pick of Shawn Merriman or DeMarcus Ware. Instead, in a top 10 filled with underachieving CB (Pac Man Jones, Antrell Rolle & Carlos Rogers) we got a decent #2 CB, which is exactly what we already had in Smoot.

3. Ryan Clark-We won't even get into the Ryan Clark/Adam Archuleta discussion, that's too easy. Let's look at what might have been in the draft. If we didn't have to replace Clark AND Archuleta with Landry in the 1st round numerous options could have presented themselves. We could have packaged the #6 pick with others to try to move up for Calvin Johnson, instead of signing London Fletcher we could have picked Patrick Willis or we could have been more aggressive and forward thinking and tried to actively shop the pick for suitors for Adrian Peterson or even (if Cerrato is true to 'best player available') drafted Peterson and had a hell of a backfield. Then again, if smarter moves were made previously we probably wouldn't have been picking 6th!

Of course hindsight is 20/20 and we can play the woulda, shoulda, coulda all night long. I'm no fan of Matt Millen, I mean Vinny Cerrato, but our current problems log back to our prior failings from our 'leadership' team.

[MdBluefinCrab]

Another dumb move by our wonderful front office but, losing Clark hasn't been much of a regression as we made out pretty good with Landry, whom I hope gets more physical and Horton.
Keeping Hall and Rogers should be the two Clowns top priority this off season, along with saying goodbye to Springs. If Spring stays and Rogers or Hall goes, the strongest part of our defense will become our weakest link.