Better Mike LB Fletcher vs. Pierce

[RayNAustin]

Letting AP go was not a cap related decision IMO. This was arrogance on the part of the defensive coaching staff that believed "the system" was responsible for the defensive accomplishments more than the players playing.

Going back to that time period, we traded the best corner in the NFL, and still ended up 3rd in total defense for 2004. We then let Smoot go. We let Ryan Clark go. We let AP go, and we benched Arrington over the course of the next two years. The result? We went from 3rd to 31st in 2 short years. The signing of Archuletta to that mega deal would suggest that there wasn't a cap space issue then (how soon we forget), but was a personnel decision that was extremely ill conceived.

Sure. the coaching staff believed they could save cap by letting AP go and using Marshall in his place, that's true, but they believed they could plug in Marshall without missing a beat. They were wrong, and history proves that to be true. The Redskin defense didn't stop the slide until they picked up Fletcher, but have never returned to the dominant form of 2004.

Any way you slice it or dice it....rationalize or explain, letting AP go was one of the many poor personnel decisions of the Gibbs II regime. First, the MIKE is your QB of the defense...the heart and soul.....all great defenses rely heavily on the MLB to shore up the middle and make sure the defense is aligned properly. Secondly, you never allow key players to leave and sign with a division rival if you can help it. That's two mistakes in one move. We weakened our defense, and strengthened our opponent's defense in doing so.

Fletcher was a fix, not a an addition. And Peirce's bad mouthing of the Redskins is justified given that they basically told him he was just another player...easily replaceable. He knew better, and now we (some of us) do too.

[GSPODS]

Yep. The team should have kept Pierce. If they really wanted him, he could have stayed. Fletcher is great, but not young.

In retrospect, it cost more time and money to substitute Pierce, groom a young guy who will replace the guy that Pierce substituted and make up for the void he left as the defense was terrible without him.

I think we ended up with a rather costly loss.

Pierce signed a 6 year, $26 Million contract that included a $6.5 million signing bonus. When, before this season, did the Redskins ever have the roughly $4.5 million salary and the roughly $2.2 million pro-rated signing bonus left after day one of free agency? $6.7 million in cap space? The Daniel Snyder owned Washington Redskins? How many other players were the Redskins paying over $6.5 million in 2005? Probably none. Danny loves his restructuring of contracts. Why anyone would think this was the Redskins fault is beyond me.

[RayNAustin]

Yep. The team should have kept Pierce. If they really wanted him, he could have stayed. Fletcher is great, but not young.

In retrospect, it cost more time and money to substitute Pierce, groom a young guy who will replace the guy that Pierce substituted and make up for the void he left as the defense was terrible without him.

I think we ended up with a rather costly loss.

Pierce signed a 6 year, $26 Million contract that included a $6.5 million signing bonus. When, before this season, did the Redskins ever have the roughly $4.5 million salary and the roughly $2.2 million pro-rated signing bonus left after day one of free agency? $6.7 million in cap space? The Daniel Snyder owned Washington Redskins? How many other players were the Redskins paying over $6.5 million in 2005? Probably none. Danny loves his restructuring of contracts. Why anyone would think this was the Redskins fault is beyond me.

They signed Archumama to a 30 Mil deal with a 10 mil signing bonus, THAT"S WHEN!

[Irn-Bru]

Pierce signed a 6 year, $26 Million contract that included a $6.5 million signing bonus. When, before this season, did the Redskins ever have the roughly $4.5 million salary and the roughly $2.2 million pro-rated signing bonus left after day one of free agency?

Funny that you should mention it. That was an offseason where we made very few moves in free agency, and almost no "splash" moves. We had the money.

[GSPODS]

Yep. The team should have kept Pierce. If they really wanted him, he could have stayed. Fletcher is great, but not young.

In retrospect, it cost more time and money to substitute Pierce, groom a young guy who will replace the guy that Pierce substituted and make up for the void he left as the defense was terrible without him.

I think we ended up with a rather costly loss.

Pierce signed a 6 year, $26 Million contract that included a $6.5 million signing bonus. When, before this season, did the Redskins ever have the roughly $4.5 million salary and the roughly $2.2 million pro-rated signing bonus left after day one of free agency? $6.7 million in cap space? The Daniel Snyder owned Washington Redskins? How many other players were the Redskins paying over $6.5 million in 2005? Probably none. Danny loves his restructuring of contracts. Why anyone would think this was the Redskins fault is beyond me.

They signed Archumama to a 30 Mil deal with a 10 mil signing bonus, THAT"S WHEN!

Archuleta's contract was around $30 million with a $5 Million signing bonus over six years, with a $1 million option bonus per season. And that was a free agency signing, not a contract extension or renegotiation. You're argument is a potential $5 million per season if all incentives and options apply, in addition to salary and signing bonus money versus $6.7 million guaranteed and payable immediately upon a valid contract signature? Poor argument.

[GSPODS]

Pierce signed a 6 year, $26 Million contract that included a $6.5 million signing bonus. When, before this season, did the Redskins ever have the roughly $4.5 million salary and the roughly $2.2 million pro-rated signing bonus left after day one of free agency?

Funny that you should mention it. That was an offseason where we made very few moves in free agency, and almost no "splash" moves. We had the money.

I had to double-check the rosters (from jt-sw.com) between 2004 and 2005.
I know who would know how much money the Redskins had. 1NIKSDER
Wasn't this one of the years when the Redskins were eating their collective shorts in dead cap space? I can't remember. But it seems to me like either they had to restructure two large contracts or they were eating massive dead cap space. I really don't think they had the money only because that was when Dan Snyder was in his spend the max and beyond phase. Dan's pride wouldn't have allowed the Giants to outbid him, so it must have been something else. I have to think it was cap space, although when 1NIKSDER shows up and reads this, we'll all know. A volume of both useful and useless salary cap knowledge is 1NIKSDER

2004
T Ethan Albright
LB LaVar Arrington
LB Brandon Barnes
RB Ladell Betts
DT Ryan Boschetti
S Matt Bowen
WR Antonio Brown
T/G Ray Brown
CB Rufus Brown
QB Mark Brunell
LB Khary Campbell
FB Rock Cartwright
K Jeff Chandler
S Ryan Clark
LB Chris Clemons
WR Laveranues Coles
TE Chris ey
DE Phillip Daniels
CB Pat Dennis
RB Dahrran Diedrick
G Derrick Dockery
S Jason Doering
DE Demetric Evans
CB Todd Franz
G Lennie Friedman
WR Rod Gardner
DT Cornelius Griffin
DT Jermaine Haley
K John Hall
CB Walt Harris
WR Taylor Jacobs
CB Ade Jimoh
G/T Kenyatta Jones
K Ola Kimrin
TE Brian Kozlowski
LB Devin Lemons
S Andre Lott
LB Lemar Marshall
WR Darnerien McCants
T Jim Molinaro
RB Chad Morton
DT Brandon Noble
G/T Vaughn Parker
LB Antonio Pierce
RB Clinton Portis
QB Patrick Ramsey
TE Walter Rasby
C Cory Raymer
TE Robert Royal
DT Joe Salave'a
T Chris Samuels
TE/FB Mike Sellers
CB Fred Smoot
CB Shawn Springs
LB Dominique Stevenson
LB Billy Strother
S Sean Taylor
G Randy Thomas
WR James Thrash
P/QB Tom Tupa
DE Ron Warner
LB Marcus Washington
CB Garnell Wilds
T Mark Wilson
DT Renaldo Wynn


2005
C/T Ethan Albright
LB LaVar Arrington
RB Ladell Betts
DT Ryan Boschetti
S Matt Bowen
RB Nehemiah Broughton
WR Antonio Brown
T/G Ray Brown
QB Mark Brunell
LB Khary Campbell
FB Rock Cartwright
S Ryan Clark
LB Chris Clemons
DE Nic Clemons
TE Chris ey
DE Phillip Daniels
G Derrick Dockery
DE Demetric Evans
WR Jimmy Farris
G Lennie Friedman
P Derrick Frost
DT Cornelius Griffin
P Andy Groom
K John Hall
CB Walt Harris
LB Warrick Holdman
WR Taylor Jacobs
T Jon Jansen
CB Ade Jimoh
TE Robert Johnson
DE Aki Jones
LB Zak Keasey
DT Cedric Killings
TE Brian Kozlowski
LB Lemar Marshall
LB Robert McCune
T Jim Molinaro
CB Christian Morton
WR Santana Moss
K Nick Novak
WR Rich Parson
WR David Patten
DB Dimitri Patterson
RB Clinton Portis
S Pierson Prioleau
G/C Casey Rabach
QB Patrick Ramsey
C Cory Raymer
CB Carlos Rogers
TE Robert Royal
DT Joe Salave'a
T Chris Samuels
TE/FB Mike Sellers
CB Shawn Springs
S Omar Stoutmire
S Sean Taylor
G Randy Thomas
WR James Thrash
LB Marcus Washington
DT Renaldo Wynn

[SkinsFreak]

check this video and see if #59 and # 30 are soft

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWi1rzG1U0I

That video is both awesome and so sad.

Huh, my thoughts exactly, Bru.

Fletch, in my opinion, is a far more valuable player for this organization. First, save for the cap ramifications, wasn't it the all great Gregg Williams that set AP free? If Gregg really wanted to keep AP, Snyder has proven in years past to accommodate the coaches desires. Fletch is a team and locker room leader, pretty important for the player that QB's the defense. While Fletch is a feared tackling machine on defense, he's a humble and gracious individual off the field. He's not a conceded and arrogant person, much like the way I've seen AP in recent past.

[Paralis]

Yep. The team should have kept Pierce. If they really wanted him, he could have stayed. Fletcher is great, but not young.

In retrospect, it cost more time and money to substitute Pierce, groom a young guy who will replace the guy that Pierce substituted and make up for the void he left as the defense was terrible without him.

I think we ended up with a rather costly loss.

Pierce signed a 6 year, $26 Million contract that included a $6.5 million signing bonus. When, before this season, did the Redskins ever have the roughly $4.5 million salary and the roughly $2.2 million pro-rated signing bonus left after day one of free agency? $6.7 million in cap space? The Daniel Snyder owned Washington Redskins? How many other players were the Redskins paying over $6.5 million in 2005? Probably none. Danny loves his restructuring of contracts. Why anyone would think this was the Redskins fault is beyond me.

They signed Archumama to a 30 Mil deal with a 10 mil signing bonus, THAT"S WHEN!

Archuleta's contract was around $30 million with a $5 Million signing bonus over six years, with a $1 million option bonus per season. And that was a free agency signing, not a contract extension or renegotiation. You're argument is a potential $5 million per season if all incentives and options apply, in addition to salary and signing bonus money versus $6.7 million guaranteed and payable immediately upon a valid contract signature? Poor argument.

Signing bonuses are prorated for salary cap purposes. Pierce's cap number for 2005 was likely in the $2M range. The contract he signed with the Giants was not a lot of money for a linebacker even in 2005 and reflected his short resume as a starter.

Archuleta's contract had a $5M signing bonus, and a $5M option bonus with an attached $5M non-exercise clause. The guaranteed amount was $10M; it was just shifted around for cap purposes. But it's different years and different circumstances, and I don't think anybody's going to argue that the Arch deal was a good precedent.

The real cap issue in the 2005 offseason was the Santana Moss-Laveraneus Coles trade. Whatever you think of Moss (and I'm certainly a fan), this was easily the worst move of the Gibbs 2.0 era. Taking a cap hit of that magnitude to get rid of a good player is just horrendous personnel management no matter the results. Telling the locker room that anybody who wants out can have out just doesn't fly in the salary cap era and the front office was silly to act otherwise.

[GSPODS]

Yep. The team should have kept Pierce. If they really wanted him, he could have stayed. Fletcher is great, but not young.

In retrospect, it cost more time and money to substitute Pierce, groom a young guy who will replace the guy that Pierce substituted and make up for the void he left as the defense was terrible without him.

I think we ended up with a rather costly loss.

Pierce signed a 6 year, $26 Million contract that included a $6.5 million signing bonus. When, before this season, did the Redskins ever have the roughly $4.5 million salary and the roughly $2.2 million pro-rated signing bonus left after day one of free agency? $6.7 million in cap space? The Daniel Snyder owned Washington Redskins? How many other players were the Redskins paying over $6.5 million in 2005? Probably none. Danny loves his restructuring of contracts. Why anyone would think this was the Redskins fault is beyond me.

They signed Archumama to a 30 Mil deal with a 10 mil signing bonus, THAT"S WHEN!

Archuleta's contract was around $30 million with a $5 Million signing bonus over six years, with a $1 million option bonus per season. And that was a free agency signing, not a contract extension or renegotiation. You're argument is a potential $5 million per season if all incentives and options apply, in addition to salary and signing bonus money versus $6.7 million guaranteed and payable immediately upon a valid contract signature? Poor argument.

Signing bonuses are prorated for salary cap purposes. Pierce's cap number for 2005 was likely in the $2M range. The contract he signed with the Giants was not a lot of money for a linebacker even in 2005 and reflected his short resume as a starter.

Archuleta's contract had a $5M signing bonus, and a $5M option bonus with an attached $5M non-exercise clause. The guaranteed amount was $10M; it was just shifted around for cap purposes. But it's different years and different circumstances, and I don't think anybody's going to argue that the Arch deal was a good precedent.

The real cap issue in the 2005 offseason was the Santana Moss-Laveraneus Coles trade. Whatever you think of Moss (and I'm certainly a fan), this was easily the worst move of the Gibbs 2.0 era. Taking a cap hit of that magnitude to get rid of a good player is just horrendous personnel management no matter the results. Telling the locker room that anybody who wants out can have out just doesn't fly in the salary cap era and the front office was silly to act otherwise.

OK. So, you're saying it was even less money the Redskins didn't or couldn't come up with to keep Pierce. The Moss-Coles cap debacle does ring a bell or two, now that you mention it. My thought was and still is that Dan Snyder doesn't like being outbid by anyone. He's an egomaniac and certainly wouldn't give an NFC East opponent the pleasure of outdoing him if he could prevent it. So, I have to believe that whatever the actual numbers, Snyder couldn't prevent Pierce from leaving, not that he chose to let Pierce go without a second thought.

[PulpExposure]

But it seems to me like either they had to restructure two large contracts or they were eating massive dead cap space. I really don't think they had the money only because that was when Dan Snyder was in his spend the max and beyond phase. Dan's pride wouldn't have allowed the Giants to outbid him, so it must have been something else.

One reason I kept reading about was that they didn't want to pay AP more than they shelled out for Marcus Washington the year before. The Giants offered more than that, so the Redskins declined to match.

[GSPODS]

But it seems to me like either they had to restructure two large contracts or they were eating massive dead cap space. I really don't think they had the money only because that was when Dan Snyder was in his spend the max and beyond phase. Dan's pride wouldn't have allowed the Giants to outbid him, so it must have been something else.

One reason I kept reading about was that they didn't want to pay AP more than they shelled out for Marcus Washington the year before. The Giants offered more than that, so the Redskins declined to match.

I can't remember the circumstances surrounding that whole ordeal.
I have a sneaking suspicion that everyone here is right about some part of what happened with Pierce.
I think I'll check the THN archives for any pertinent information.

[Gibbs4Life]

For the next two years we enter the season with a overall better MLB than NY, but losing Pierce to the Giants should've never happened, it really should not have. Everyone makes mistakes, we've just made more than most, but we've also added more than most and because of Gibbs 2 we have a playoff contending franchise this year with a potential franchise QB, of course if we go 5-0 I wonder what kind of numbers Jason Campbell agent will be talking...who cares we'll be 5-0!!!!

[CanesSkins26]

The salary cap argument doesn't fly at all. Pierce had wanted to re-sign with the Skins before the season ever started for less than what he got from the Giants. The Skins weren't very interested in extending his contract and as a result let him get away.

[GSPODS]

A blast from the THN past:
Take a look at this THN thread regarding Antonio Pierce from 2005:

http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic. ... 005+pierce

[SkinsFreak]

Quite frankly, who cares? Pierce is long gone and Fletch is a better option.

[1niksder]

I can't remember the circumstances surrounding that whole ordeal.
I have a sneaking suspicion that everyone here is right about some part of what happened with Pierce.
I think I'll check the THN archives for any pertinent information.

AP has been gone for awhile now. Everyone was pretty much on point with some part of what took place.

It's true the Gints signed him to a six-year, $26 million contract, at the time AP had been a full time starter for one year and that was because of a injury he had less than 200 tackles as a Redskin and most came in his final year. What would he have gotten if Barrow hadn't been hurt?

The Skins pretty much matched New York's offer but as mentioned earlier the Skins backloaded it and the Gint's offer paid him more over the first two years. At the time Gibbs said "We would have loved to get that done, but we went as far we could go. It became a situation where we would have thrown our salary structure out [of whack]. It would have affected us in terms of adding other players."

Back in those days the Redskins didn't re-sign their players before their contracts were up UNLESS it was one of those backloaded deals that would save them cap space. They also didn't use the split bonus option that they used to overpay guys like AA and BLloyd.

[Hooligan]

Fletcher > Pierce

[Countertrey]

Fletcher > Pierce

Simple.

Elegant.

True.

[djlash]

Watching NFL Replay's broadcast of the giants super bowl and it strikes me that although those DE's are really good, the key to that defense is Pierce, who all of my friends that never give any credit to my fav. team forget was a Redskin.
If all things we're equal then I would say I'd rather have Pierce simply because he's younger, but all things aren't equal, I think in Fletcher we have a smarter more intense better tackler. Initially the blunder of letting Pierce go was moronic, however Cerrato, Gibbs & the Danny made up for it in my eyes with the signing of Fletcher. That touchdown against the Cards last year was sweeet. Alas Pierce does have a ring.

I can't believe the above post is actually a real question. If you want to nit pick I think AP is a little and I mean a little better in pass coverage but really no comparison in any other stats. And don't forget Alas.... Fletcher has a super bowl ring as well.

[MDSKINSFAN]

Quite frankly, who cares? Pierce is long gone and Fletch is a better option.

exactly. we got fletcher now so who cares about pierce

[RayNAustin]

Yep. The team should have kept Pierce. If they really wanted him, he could have stayed. Fletcher is great, but not young.

In retrospect, it cost more time and money to substitute Pierce, groom a young guy who will replace the guy that Pierce substituted and make up for the void he left as the defense was terrible without him.

I think we ended up with a rather costly loss.

Pierce signed a 6 year, $26 Million contract that included a $6.5 million signing bonus. When, before this season, did the Redskins ever have the roughly $4.5 million salary and the roughly $2.2 million pro-rated signing bonus left after day one of free agency? $6.7 million in cap space? The Daniel Snyder owned Washington Redskins? How many other players were the Redskins paying over $6.5 million in 2005? Probably none. Danny loves his restructuring of contracts. Why anyone would think this was the Redskins fault is beyond me.

They signed Archumama to a 30 Mil deal with a 10 mil signing bonus, THAT"S WHEN!

Archuleta's contract was around $30 million with a $5 Million signing bonus over six years, with a $1 million option bonus per season. And that was a free agency signing, not a contract extension or renegotiation. You're argument is a potential $5 million per season if all incentives and options apply, in addition to salary and signing bonus money versus $6.7 million guaranteed and payable immediately upon a valid contract signature? Poor argument.

It was 30 mil and 10 mil signing bonus. Your argument is the one that doesn't hold water.....oh poor Redskins just could'nt afford Peirce, blah blah blah.

Why do you make this stuff up?

[Irn-Bru]

Fletcher > Pierce

Simple.

Elegant.

True.

Eh, I agree on the basic comparison but it doesn't address what Pierce would have meant to us over the last 3 years plus the next 4. . .

[GSPODS]

Pierce signed a 6 year, $26 Million contract that included a $6.5 million signing bonus. When, before this season, did the Redskins ever have the roughly $4.5 million salary and the roughly $2.2 million pro-rated signing bonus left after day one of free agency? $6.7 million in cap space? The Daniel Snyder owned Washington Redskins? How many other players were the Redskins paying over $6.5 million in 2005? Probably none. Danny loves his restructuring of contracts. Why anyone would think this was the Redskins fault is beyond me.

They signed Archumama to a 30 Mil deal with a 10 mil signing bonus, THAT"S WHEN!

Archuleta's contract was around $30 million with a $5 Million signing bonus over six years, with a $1 million option bonus per season. And that was a free agency signing, not a contract extension or renegotiation. You're argument is a potential $5 million per season if all incentives and options apply, in addition to salary and signing bonus money versus $6.7 million guaranteed and payable immediately upon a valid contract signature? Poor argument.

It was 30 mil and 10 mil signing bonus. Your argument is the one that doesn't hold water.....oh poor Redskins just could'nt afford Peirce, blah blah blah.

Why do you make this stuff up?

The club has addressed most of its major needs with a flurry of hefty contracts, with Archuleta, Randle El and Carter each set to earn about a maximum of $30 million over six years, according to sources with knowledge of the situation, with Carter's deal expected to include at least $10 million in guaranteed money, like the others. Archuleta's contract, for example, includes a $5 million signing bonus with $1 million in option bonuses each year for five years, according to a source, allowing for a manageable cap number.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00558.html

Unless you've got a different and more reliable source, I'll go with the numbers from this link.
Furthermore, the Archuleta contract was March 16th, 2006.
The Pierce contract with NY was March 6th, 2005.

Could we at least get in the same contract year with this discussion?
Arguing cap space for two different seasons really makes no sense.
Thanks, however, for the baseless accusation about inventing the information contained in this post, especially given that no link or source of contradictory information was provided.

[Countertrey]

Fletcher > Pierce

Simple.

Elegant.

True.

Eh, I agree on the basic comparison but it doesn't address what Pierce would have meant to us over the last 3 years plus the next 4. . .

Frankly, We haven't had the line to protect the MLB for the past 2 years... Fletcher did a fabulous job with a much less effective line than the one Pierce had in front of him. I wonder what Fletcher would have looked like behind the Giants 4. What would Pierce have looked like with less protection from the 'skins front 4? Would he have lasted under the additional pounding he would have to take form being repeatedly engaged by Guards and Centers?

Beyond that, it just doesn't matter... Pierce has been a Giant. It is what it is. (Speculation is cheap. What would Keenan McCardell's career have looked like had he remained a 'skin? Who could possibly know?)

[tribeofjudah]

Fletcher > Pierce

that's why Fletcher is on my Fantasy team..... Hail