Vincent

Washington Redskins' Game Day discussions for 2003, 2004, and 2005
+++++++++
Posts: 5225
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 11:21 am

Postby Skinsfan55 » Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:09 pm

Speaking of a SS being used like a FS...

Didn't Joe Gibbs say at the AA press conference (when he was signed) that the Redskins didn't use FS or SS, just safties.

While that might work, and might be a bright idea... why would we pick Arch when this is not what he does best?
"Guess [Ryan Kerrigan] really does have a good motor. And is relentless. And never quits on a play. And just keeps coming. And probably eats Wheaties and drinks Apple Pie smoothies and shaves with Valvoline." -Dan Steinberg DC Sports Bog

|||||||
Posts: 4566
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:11 pm
Location: Somewhere, out there.

Postby UK Skins Fan » Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:42 pm

When we signed AA, I was puzzled, considering that Clark seemed to give us everything we needed from the safety spot. When I thought about it, the only things that he seemed to add were more bulk when playing near the line of scrimmage and greater blitzing ability. I had visions of the guy playing almost exclusively as an extra linebacker, getting after the passer, and helping to shut down the run, whilst presumably having enough coverage skills to look after a running back or tight end.

So, why is he being asked to run around in the secondary covering people that he hasn't a hope of getting near? It baffles me. Perhaps things will change with Vincent being on board, but the only change that could come from that is simply to reduce AA's playing time.

Again, it baffles me. We have teams running all over us, when AA playing up to the line could surely help us out. At the same time, any lumbering pachyderm that can understand a post pattern could probably beat us deep, and we have AA back there to cover?

I am officially confused.
Also available on Twitter @UKSkinsFan

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 1510
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:31 pm

Postby SkinzCanes » Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm

So, why is he being asked to run around in the secondary covering people that he hasn't a hope of getting near? It baffles me. Perhaps things will change with Vincent being on board, but the only change that could come from that is simply to reduce AA's playing time.


Because our corners can't cover. You can't leave any of them in single coverage.

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 1539
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 11:54 am
Location: St. Louis, Mo

Postby Sir_Monk » Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:18 pm

I might be wrong here, but I thought the point of picking up AA was to make sure the FS position was covered in case Sean Taylor had to serve time.
Bruce has the authority. When Bruce makes the decision, it's a Redskins decision.

Fire Bruce Boudreau

Pushing Paper
Posts: 4591
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:01 pm

Postby PulpExposure » Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:12 pm

Sir_Monk wrote:I might be wrong here, but I thought the point of picking up AA was to make sure the FS position was covered in case Sean Taylor had to serve time.


Great conspiracy theory, but there is no way anyone thinks AA could play a credible FS in the NFL.

FS has to cover. AA has never been able to, and still isn't now.

SkinzCanes wrote:So what's your point?? Sean Taylor got burned by Burress. That's one game. In college he single handedly covered Larry Fitzgerald when Miami played Pitt. He has matched up twice against Moss and gotten the better of the matchup both times. AA gets beat every single week. AA isn't even in the same league as Taylor.


AA isn't a FS and isn't supposed to be in coverage. You might not remember David Fulcher, but as a SS he was a multiple probowler. Couldn't cover worth a damn, but he wasn't put in the position to do so.

Taylor is a hell of a player, but I think he's having a down season. Thanks, since you helped prove that when you pointed out previously he blanketed Larry Fitzgerald and Randy Moss twice, but this year he's being beaten by Plaxico Burress.

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 315
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 9:25 pm
Location: Herndon VA

Postby reggiebrooks4life » Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:01 am

with a healthy springs it should free Archuleta and ST up since springs can actually play man to man defense unlike Rumph
I am the walrus...coo coo ca choo?

FanFromAnnapolis
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:01 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby Irn-Bru » Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:02 am

Can you imagine if we had kept Adam Archuleta and re-signed Clark? =P~


We had enough cap space to do it (though I suppose that we had to make those decisions before the new CBA--which gave us the room--was agreed upon), and with the way that Gregg Williams plays his players it wouldn't have to have been a "demotion" for Clark.

Ah well. . .alternate universes. . .
"Last year I thought we'd win it all. This year I know we will." - Rex Ryan, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Jets

"Dream team." - Vince Young, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Eagles

Pushing Paper
Posts: 4591
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:01 pm

Postby PulpExposure » Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:15 am

Irn-Bru wrote:Can you imagine if we had kept Adam Archuleta and re-signed Clark? =P~


We had enough cap space to do it (though I suppose that we had to make those decisions before the new CBA--which gave us the room--was agreed upon), and with the way that Gregg Williams plays his players it wouldn't have to have been a "demotion" for Clark.

Ah well. . .alternate universes. . .


And in that alternate universe, can Antonio Pierce still play MLB for the skins? :wink:

|
Posts: 1290
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Greenville, NC

Postby sch1977 » Sun Oct 29, 2006 9:17 am

Hopefully during the bye week, Vincent will get some reps with the 1st teamers.
Taylor and Landry will take no Prisoners!! - I just can't bring myself to delete it!

#######
Posts: 7224
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 9:13 pm
Location: Washington D.C.

Postby The Hogster » Tue Oct 31, 2006 4:08 pm

BossHog wrote:
Chris Luva Luva wrote:But if we knew AA couldn't cover when he got here why make him the leagues highest paid safety? If he only brings one dimension to this team does that warrant such a high price tag?

Cleary this issue wouldn't be so big if AA was out for the season?

Pierson is the better safety and is being paid a lot less and when he asks for a bigger contract the Skins will baulk and send him away disgruntled also.

Vincent having been here 4 weeks has a better grasp of the secondary.


Why does Vincent have a better grasp of the secondary? Couldn't it just be that he's a better player? He also came from Buffalo where they use a very similar defense anyway.

I don't care if the media TELL you that Archuletta is the highest paid safety in the league... he isn't... he's not even the highest paid safety on our team right now. If you prefer to go with what the media tell you, that's your prerogative; but they don't understand the salary cap at all and aren't usually qualified to comment on it... but if you want to take their word, go right ahead. They can't figure out that only guaranteed money means anything... and they're not going to actually figure out what a player will ACTUALLY see as opposed to what they could POSSIBLY see.

AA isn't playing to what he's paid for sure... but he isn't being paid like the media pundits would have you believe. If I had the time, I'd break down a few safety's contracts for you to see what I'm talking about. if I can find some time this week, I'll try and put something together to dispel this myth. AA isn't earning his paycheque right now, but that paycheque ISN'T the biggest safety ticket in the league.

I just don't understand why it is that the strong safety is being pounded for not covering the deep ball when the free safety is nowhere to be found.

Like i said... I'm not defending Archuletta's ability to cover a pass... I'm asking why he's being asked to continually do what he isn't good at? That isn't his fault. He's being put in a position to fail and nothing else... he was brought here to be a blitzing strong safety that had some presence in the box... we have him sitting back in coverage. We cheat Sean Taylor to the line more than AA and has ST ever actually got to a quarterback?

He hasn't been getting to any receivers lately either. :shock:

I think the world of Sean Taylor too, he's just not playing very well right now... like a lot of players. He's still making some big hits, but he isn't making them on receivers.

If you want to talk about how much AA sucks in coverage, that's fine with me... he does, but I just don't understand how the FREE safety gets a pass on the conversation... and right now, he can't cover anyone either. And I don't understand how you can not assess blame to the defensive co-ordinator that continues to put the guy in a position that an armchair QB knows not to put him.


Please explain how he is not the highest paid safety on our team? I think people are poungind him because its no excuse to not cover underneath routes when you play safety....he is not a linebacker, he's still a safety and even the strongest of the strong will inevitably have to cover slot receivers, tight ends, and running backs...I just don't think its an excuse for a guy who is a "high profile" safety in this league who (prefers to hone his skills in some distant location away from the team and coaches) to now say that he can't cover because he's a run supporter.

I respectfully disagree about Sean as well...we all know his agressiveness is a liability when he guesses wrong and is caught out of position, however, a good amount of his hits have been on receivers...in fact some of his biggest hits were on Terrell Owens, Reggie Williams...the fact that we have such an agressive Free Safety actually underscores the importance of having another safety who can actually cover in space.

I'm not gonna lay it all on Archuletta, I think the blame lies with Cerrato and whoever else chose him, because the whole league knew that he was a coverage liability. But seriously, if you know you have to use your Strong safety only in the box...you are severely limiting what you can do on defense, especially when facing teams that run spread offenses...what is williams to do? Either put him on the sideline and bring in another set of DB's? Or ask him to do what he's paid to do and that's cover when its time to cover.

Either way, its silly to let a guy go who can do both things pretty well, in favor for a more expensive guy who is very good at only one thing.

Taylor gets a pass because he is still making plays, and he has shown us that he can cover..last season I remember him matching up with receivers like Randy Moss and T.O. and holding his own....I don't think he's gotten bad all of a sudden...this begs the question that perhaps he looks like he's getting beaten because he's trying to cover more ground to make up for Archuletta's ineptitude.

And if Vincent, who signed for the vet minimum, is a better player than Archuletta, then that speaks volumes for the poor decision to even pursue Archuletta.
SPIT HAPPENS!!
___________________________

**********
User avatar
Posts: 16744
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:45 pm
Location: If I knew ... it would explain a lot but I've seen Homerville on a map, that wasn't helpful at all

Postby 1niksder » Tue Oct 31, 2006 6:28 pm

Please explain how he is not the highest paid safety on our team?


OK but this is the last time....

He signed a 6 year $30 million contract with $10M bonus. The bonus was split up over two years so he got $5M upfront and will get the other half next March (if he is on the team) His base $ 585000.00 this year, $595000.00 in 07, almost doubles in 08 to $1M even then jumps to $4M in 2009, and goes up $1M each year from there.

If he is here in 2008 he’ll be paid $1M but his cap hit will be around $3M , this years cap hit is about $1.6M. That’s where the story is – The Cap once the cap hit gets too high he’ll have to rework the deal or be cut. The last three years of the deal total $15,000,000 that he won’t see, (He’ll be 32 in 2009 and scheduled to make $4M?). So now that reported 6 years for $30M at best is 3 years at $15M and ten million of that is bonus money. If you really want to include the bonus money than go back a few years and you’ll find that Sean Taylor signed a 7 year deal worth $18M but with the escalators in the deal and his play on the field it’s really a 6 year $40M deal. Taylor’s base this year was $750,000 and it will reach its peek in 2010 and then will be less than $1.5M.

One has a contract that paid more upfront but include a way to make more later, while the other got a bunch upfront and a lot promised later.

If AA played like ST then you’d think he’d be around long enough to play out the contract, AA doesn’t play like ST. Taylor’s cap hit next year will be a third of what it is this year, Arch’s will go up a million.

Next week I’ll let you know what it’ll cost to let him go.
..__..
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-

When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....

If the world didn't suck we'd all fall off

#######
Posts: 7224
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 9:13 pm
Location: Washington D.C.

Postby The Hogster » Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:08 pm

So basically what you are saying is that you don't think that he will end up being the highest paid safety on our team...because even with the explanation it is not clear who will actually wind up making the most money.

I understand what you are saying, but you are assuming that the Skins signed Archuletta anticipating that he will A) underperform his contract and B) rework his deal (which he doesn't have any incentive to do)

While you could be right, I think it's highly suspect for the team to do business like that. Of course you want to strike a balance between incentivizing & rewarding the player, and saving money....but your explanation suggests that the Skins are intentinoally signing players to contracts when they have no intention or expectation that the player can actually receive a great deal of the money.

What follows from that is we are signing players, but actually have an interest in them playing poorly, missing games, not making the pro-bowl, then getting cut or restructuring after a relatively short period of time....isn't that a counter productive way to run a football team?

Under your hypothetical, who is to say that Taylor would not be released prior to hitting his incentives? While I get your theory, its pretty speculative because you have to assume that Archuletta will be cut, while also assuming that Taylor will hit his incentives while remaining with the team.

This is the same team thats currently the oldest in the league...to say that Arch wouldn't be here when he is 32 is no guarantee, especially if his play picks up this year or next year.
SPIT HAPPENS!!
___________________________

**********
User avatar
Posts: 16744
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:45 pm
Location: If I knew ... it would explain a lot but I've seen Homerville on a map, that wasn't helpful at all

Postby 1niksder » Tue Oct 31, 2006 10:11 pm

The Hogster wrote:So basically what you are saying is that you don't think that he will end up being the highest paid safety on our team...because even with the explanation it is not clear who will actually wind up making the most money.

I'm saying we are looking at their contracts the younger guy is making/will make the most money. Everyone knew what they were getting into when they drew uo the paperwork

The Hogster wrote:I understand what you are saying, but you are assuming that the Skins signed Archuletta anticipating that he will A) underperform his contract and B) rework his deal (which he doesn't have any incentive to do)

Arch may not even think he'll play 6 years ..... they sign long term contracts in order for the team to give them big bonuses and the space to spread it out.
$10 million over 6 in NFL terms is $2M per year in cap space. Gibbs broke it up into two payments or $1M the 1st years, then add a million each year down the road. If things don't work out then let him go before the March bonus is due ($5M) and deal with the cap hit but you get a growing salary off the books. (everything is based on him being on the team if he wants the money in the deal.) If a player makes it to the point of re-doing a contract that was too big to start with they normally work out pretty good (see C. Samuels)

The Hogster wrote:While you could be right, I think it's highly suspect for the team to do business like that. Of course you want to strike a balance between incentivizing & rewarding the player, and saving money....but your explanation suggests that the Skins are intentinoally signing players to contracts when they have no intention or expectation that the player can actually receive a great deal of the money.

The Skins do contracts that produce joy for everyone. The player feels he is getting his worth (Signing Bonus is all they are guaranteed and the Skins shell out big ones). The fans get players to hype all off-season, and the press get to blow the deals so far out of proportion it's laughable. But all of the contracts are signed to benefit the Washington Redskins.
If Taylor hadn't have worked out, it would have cost the team less than $20M but based on his play he's worth ten time that, in reality he'll get paid twice the face value of the deal (if not re-worked before it expires). If AA works out then in 3 years it'll be time to re-work his deal (it won't be a option, it'll be a must). Adam has been around for a while so it's safe to assume he and his agent knew what they were signing. If it doesn't work out he won't even get a third of the face value. (It will always be about production)

The Hogster wrote:What follows from that is we are signing players, but actually have an interest in them playing poorly, missing games, not making the pro-bowl, then getting cut or restructuring after a relatively short period of time....isn't that a counter productive way to run a football team?

The Skins sign players to:
a) Fill a need
b) Make a splash
c) for cap reason.... not in any particular order

Players sign contracts to:
1. Get to the next contract
2. Get to the next contract
3. Just to say they got another contract

The Hogster wrote:Under your hypothetical, who is to say that Taylor would not be released prior to hitting his incentives? While I get your theory, its pretty speculative because you have to assume that Archuletta will be cut, while also assuming that Taylor will hit his incentives while remaining with the team.

Other than Pro Bowl apperences and a Lombardi Taylor is there. So much for speculation (he really is a Beast)

The Hogster wrote:This is the same team thats currently the oldest in the league...to say that Arch wouldn't be here when he is 32 is no guarantee, especially if his play picks up this year or next year.

Regardless of how he plays, what direction the team is going or what the cap is in 2009 Adam, Eric and "the Danny" know he won't be paid what's on the books when the season rolls around.
..__..
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-

When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....

If the world didn't suck we'd all fall off

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 741
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 6:54 am
Location: St Louis via Manassas, Va.

Postby USAFSkinFan » Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:27 am

Whatever the numbers are, if I'm Taylor, or Marcus Washington for that matter, I'm holding out for more money after this season because they're the only ones I'd absolutely fight to keep if I was starting a new defense... even though they're not quite playing up to past performances, they're running around trying to do the job of two people half the time...

as far as the topic at hand goes, I do think Vincent can be a good replacement for Prioleau (except for special teams) and maybe help keep Arch out of those unfavorable situations...

mursilis
Posts: 2414
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:07 pm

Postby Mursilis » Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:42 am

Where do you get the details on these contracts? Is that info available online? And thanks for the research.

Return to Washington Redskins Game Day - 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006