WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements

EARTHQUAKE2689 · 02-16-2007, 04:47 PM

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

AlvinWalton'sNeckBrace · 02-16-2007, 01:24 PM

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

That Guy · 02-16-2007, 04:39 PM

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.

B.F. SKINner · 02-19-2007, 12:55 PM

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!

Schneed10 · 02-19-2007, 01:34 PM

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.

02-16-2007, 04:47 PM	#1
EARTHQUAKE2689 You did WHAT?!? Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: In The Kitchen With Dyna. Age: 37 Posts: 14,189	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

02-16-2007, 01:24 PM	#2
AlvinWalton'sNeckBrace Impact Rookie Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Fayetteville, NC Age: 41 Posts: 896	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

02-16-2007, 04:39 PM	#3
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 43 Posts: 17,620	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.

02-19-2007, 12:55 PM	#4
B.F. SKINner Camp Scrub Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 29	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!

02-19-2007, 01:34 PM	#5
Schneed10 A Dude Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Newtown Square, PA Age: 46 Posts: 12,458	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. __________________ God made certain people to play football. He was one of them.

WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements

Locker Room Main Forum