Adam Archuletta

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by Citizens for 81

Archuletta has only been effective as a safety in the NFL when he's the 8th man in the box.

He's not the right match with Taylor.

The secondary and Taylor play better when the opposite safety is more of a coverage guy.

That's what I was saying when the Skins signed him. A lot of us on this site hate on Roy Williams. I said, when we signed him, that the Skins just gave huge money to a worse version of Roy Williams. He's only ever been marginally better than Matt Bowen. The Skins should have just hung on to him instead of signing Archuletta...or Clark...hmmmmm, what a novel thought.

[wilsowilso]

There is no doubt in my mind that they are trying to make him so miserable that he begs to buy out of his contract just like they did with Lavar. It's not a bad strategy in the cap era when you don't have that many other options. He already got the nice signing bonus and he probably hates it here so he will try anything to get away.

[Bill B]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

There is no doubt in my mind that they are trying to make him so miserable that he begs to buy out of his contract just like they did with Lavar. It's not a bad strategy in the cap era when you don't have that many other options. He already got the nice signing bonus and he probably hates it here so he will try anything to get away.

Actually I heard on sports talk 980 that the NFL put in new restrictions after the Lavar fiasco that does not allow players to buy out of there contracts anymore/return money to the team. Since this new rule teams have to be more than careful about handing out huge sontracts/bonuses because of this.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by Bill B

Actually I heard on sports talk 980 that the NFL put in new restrictions after the Lavar fiasco that does not allow players to buy out of there contracts anymore/return money to the team. Since this new rule teams have to be more than careful about handing out huge sontracts/bonuses because of this.

Yeah, the nflpa got that put into the new cba I believe. It guarantees "guaranteed" money as much as possible.
Maybe AA will retire & then un-retire, we wouldn't have to pay him all of his salary, but I'm sure some of it would still be dead cap $.
If the Lavar strategy is being used, I think it's really poor mgmt. Players talk to other players & they do have a union. It's not good for morale. In Lavar's case it seemed there was a lot he & his agents brought on himself, we haven't heard anything from AA (unless he's the mole in the Friend article) to indicate that he's a problem other than sucking in coverage. Ditto the Coles debacle. It can't be good for player-mgmt. relations to have threats looming over your player's heads!

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by Bill B

Actually I heard on sports talk 980 that the NFL put in new restrictions after the Lavar fiasco that does not allow players to buy out of there contracts anymore/return money to the team. Since this new rule teams have to be more than careful about handing out huge sontracts/bonuses because of this.

Oh I didn't know they changed that. I guess like Matty said they will just cut him. That is going to be a huge cap hit.

[B.F. SKINner]

I think we should give him another shot back there. He has to be better than Vernon Fox and I'd like to see him in now, after the safeties' strategy appears to have been altered, i.e. not being as aggressive.

[MTK]

I don't think there's going to be any fancy workings to get AA off the team. I think they'll just cut him.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I don't think there's going to be any fancy workings to get AA off the team. I think they'll just cut him.

Man! What a heartbreaker, to pony up that kind of cash for nothing. If he's Gregs guy, he should have to answer for that. He really shouldn't have missed by that far

[Big C]

the switch to linebacker isnt as crazy as some of u are making it out to be. he was a linebacker in college i believe

[Big C]

i dont really know why we would cut him, i dont think he is really messing chemistry up or anything. it costs like 7 million more to cut him then to just keep him on the bench

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Big C

i dont really know why we would cut him, i dont think he is really messing chemistry up or anything. it costs like 7 million more to cut him then to just keep him on the bench

Why?

Why not?

He's been rotting on the bench for weeks now and reportedly some of the coaches aren't even talking to him anywhere. He's clearly been scapegoated, or LaVar'd as we know it around here.

Moving to LB isn't going to solve his coverage abilities which have always been a problem.

[Big C]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Why?

Why not?

He's been rotting on the bench for weeks now and reportedly some of the coaches aren't even talking to him anywhere. He's clearly been scapegoated, or LaVar'd as we know it around here.

Moving to LB isn't going to solve his coverage abilities which have always been a problem.

like i said, its about 7 million dollars cheaper to keep him and let him rot, according to the cap sheets i believe.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Big C

like i said, its about 7 million dollars cheaper to keep him and let him rot, according to the cap sheets i believe.

Roster spots are so valuable we can't just hold on to him because of his cap cut figure.

We've never been afraid in the past to bite the bullet on other guys, Coles being the biggest single cut.

[Big C]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Roster spots are so valuable we can't just hold on to him because of his cap cut figure.

We've never been afraid in the past to bite the bullet on other guys, Coles being the biggest single cut.

the way i look at it, we cut him, we still will need to get a solid special teams guy and it would be cheaper in that regard to just keep him. i doubt we cut him, unless he somehow restructures his deal to be more cap friendly for a cut, if thats even possible, or if he does a buyout like lavar

[MTK]

Well, I do think he's been that bad. Pull up any game that he started this year and there's at least one instance of him getting completely toasted.