Archuleta traded to Bears for 6th round pick

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Who are you talking about?

Pierce. we let him go, tried to replace him with a washed up Barrow, pulled Marshall out of position, then overpaid for Fletcher. We could have wrapped up one of our own players (pierce) for less than what it is costing us with Fletcher. Now we have a probowl LB playing against us twice a year. A very good thinking, intense, tackling machine.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

Pierce. we let him go, tried to replace him with a washed up Barrow, pulled Marshall out of position, then overpaid for Fletcher. We could have wrapped up one of our own players (pierce) for less than what it is costing us with Fletcher. Now we have a probowl LB playing against us twice a year. A very good thinking, intense, tackling machine.

You have every right to complain, but if you're going to then you should get your facts straight. Michael Barrow got injured and Antonio Pierce stepped in admirably in his role earning him a well-deserved contract. We did not replace Pierce with Barrow. We "replaced" Pierce with Marshall who, while Pierce was stepping in for Barrow, was stepping in quite well for Arrington when he got hurt.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

You have every right to complain, but if you're going to then you should get your facts straight. Michael Barrow got injured and Antonio Pierce stepped in admirably in his role earning him a well-deserved contract. We did not replace Pierce with Barrow. We "replaced" Pierce with Marshall who, while Pierce was stepping in for Barrow, was stepping in quite well for Arrington when he got hurt.

OK. thought barrow was brought in to replace Pierce. my mistake.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

You have every right to complain, but if you're going to then you should get your facts straight. Michael Barrow got injured and Antonio Pierce stepped in admirably in his role earning him a well-deserved contract. We did not replace Pierce with Barrow. We "replaced" Pierce with Marshall who, while Pierce was stepping in for Barrow, was stepping in quite well for Arrington when he got hurt.

Throw Barrow (another bad choice) out of the equation if you want to. I think the general premise is that we could have stayed with Pierce at middle linebacker without having to pay a 5-year, $25 million dollar contract to a 32 year old guy this year.

I know many are tired of hearing about it, but letting Pierce go was just another spoke in a very large wheel of bad personnel moves by this franchise. Fletcher could turn out to be a big help for us, and for the record, I was in support of his signing. Still, I don't know how anyone could rationally argue that we're better off cap-wise, and youth-wise with Fletcher than we would have with Pierce.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Throw Barrow (another bad choice) out of the equation if you want to. I think the general premise is that we could have stayed with Pierce at middle linebacker without having to pay a 5-year, $25 million dollar contract to a 32 year old guy this year.

I know many are tired of hearing about it, but letting Pierce go was just another spoke in a very large wheel of bad personnel moves by this franchise. Fletcher could turn out to be a big help for us, and for the record, I was in support of his signing. Still, I don't know how anyone could rationally argue that we're better off cap-wise, and youth-wise with Fletcher than we would have with Pierce.

Fletcher is Barrow four years ago. Hopefully the result won't be the same