The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

See post below...

1niksder wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Makes no since at all that the organization would pay this guy 10 million up front to be a situational guy. No way, no how...we weren't trying to sign Clark after that....we made him an offer....that wasn't up to what he was being offered by the Steelers...the signing of Arch was just the writing on the wall.

The Arch signing could have been the writing on the wall for Clark because he took the first deal that Pittsburg offered. The day after the Skins signed AA and he didn't give them a chance to match it (AA signed on the 13th, RC signed on the 14th. And again he didn't get $10 million upfront

The Hogster wrote:There is no way that you can convince people that Joe Gibbs would plan to sign this guy to be a 1 or two down player.

Much more likely that we just overestimated his ability to thrive in our system.

He got the same contract we gave a PLANNED #3 WR/ kick returner, "the Danny" writes the checks.... how much more convincing do you need.

I'm not defending AA being signed or is on field activities I'm just able to see what they were thinging when they signed him, and like I said we still haven't seen him in that role so I'll wait to pass judgement.

Just because he signed the deal that day doesn't mean that the offer was made and accepted the exact same day. You're smarter than that. From what Clark said, he was offered a deal from the Skins, wanted to test the market (like any smart player would do) he wanted to return here, and when he got a contract offer from the Steelers, he gave the Redskins the chance to do what teams who want you do, and offer him a better deal. We didn't, we signed Arch, and he signed with the Steelers. Don't play like you don't know how it works...just to try and support your theory.

Our number 3 receiver returns punts, and adds a dimension to Special teams, and the offense.

You're the only person who won't admit what the entire world can see. Archuletta has not played well...he's overpaid, and he got benched.

When the Skins want a player, we sign them. We didn't wanna pay Clark more than the Steelers so we didn't. We did however, wanna pay Arch more than the Bears offered him. So we did.

It was a bad move, simple as that. For what Arch does, we could have just signed friggin Matt Bowen for league minimum.

1niksder wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Makes no since at all that the organization would pay this guy 10 million up front to be a situational guy. No way, no how...we weren't trying to sign Clark after that....we made him an offer....that wasn't up to what he was being offered by the Steelers...the signing of Arch was just the writing on the wall.

The Arch signing could have been the writing on the wall for Clark because he took the first deal that Pittsburg offered. The day after the Skins signed AA and he didn't give them a chance to match it (AA signed on the 13th, RC signed on the 14th. And again he didn't get $10 million upfront

The Hogster wrote:There is no way that you can convince people that Joe Gibbs would plan to sign this guy to be a 1 or two down player.

Much more likely that we just overestimated his ability to thrive in our system.

He got the same contract we gave a PLANNED #3 WR/ kick returner, "the Danny" writes the checks.... how much more convincing do you need.

I'm not defending AA being signed or is on field activities I'm just able to see what they were thinging when they signed him, and like I said we still haven't seen him in that role so I'll wait to pass judgement.

He did get 10 million in bonus money...the fact that he gets it in two payments of 5 million is irrelevant man....its guaranteed.

The Hogster wrote:Just because he signed the deal that day doesn't mean that the offer was made and accepted the exact same day. You're smarter than that. From what Clark said, he was offered a deal from the Skins, wanted to test the market (like any smart player would do) he wanted to return here, and when he got a contract offer from the Steelers, he gave the Redskins the chance to do what teams who want you do, and offer him a better deal.

Check your facts... Free Agency was only a few days old, Clark had a 4 team trip planned and ws going to get back with Washington. He made his first stop in Pitt. and signed. That was it no other trips, no shot for the Skins to match it.

The Hogster wrote: We didn't, we signed Arch, and he signed with the Steelers. Don't play like you don't know how it works...just to try and support your theory.

My story are the facts you are guessing and making it up as you go.

The Hogster wrote:Our number 3 receiver returns punts, and adds a dimension to Special teams, and the offense.

That sounds like a situational player making the same money as Arch to me no matter how you try to spin it. Different situations but neither were brought in to be full time starters

The Hogster wrote:You're the only person who won't admit what the entire world can see. Archuletta has not played well...he's overpaid, and he got benched.

I have said he hasn't played well, I went as far as calulating what it will cost to cut him if it doesn't workout, those that say he's overpaid still don't understand what he makes or how he makes it (and educating those that don't want to understand, well i'm through trying. And he got bench because that was were he was going to start the season

The Hogster wrote:When the Skins want a player, we sign them. We didn't wanna pay Clark more than the Steelers so we didn't. We did however, wanna pay Arch more than the Bears offered him. So we did.

Still making it up as you go.... Arch wasn't schedule to visit the Bears for another 3 days when he signed here so the Bears never even got a shot to make a offer

The Hogster wrote:It was a bad move, simple as that. For what Arch does, we could have just signed friggin Matt Bowen for league minimum.

You still don't know what he does because he hasn't done much at what he was brought in for. But you stick with opinion it matches your facts.

You use to take the time to know what you are talking about, what happen.

Doesn't matter, the Skins are on NFL network and this has gotten old quick.

The Hogster wrote:
Our number 3 receiver returns punts, and adds a dimension to Special teams, and the offense.

That sounds like a situational player making the same money as Arch to me no matter how you try to spin it. Different situations but neither were brought in to be full time starters

What??? What are you talking about?? Since when did the friggin SLOT receiver become a situational player?? Since when did the slot receiver become a situational player in Al Saunders offense. Since when did the starting (NFC leading Punt Returner) become a situational player?? No, dude, Archuletta has become a "situational player"..and hopefully the situations when he's needed will become few and far between. Where did you using facts go?

Nothing happened, you've just fallen a victim to the success of this website...as people get closer to the players that they cover, there is a tendency to lose objectivity.

You are making assumptions that the things that occurred on a certain day, were initiated and fulfilled all at once.

Ryan Clark WAS offered a deal from the Skins. I know my facts...I may not have a line in to Snyder, however, I'm not making anything up.

One fact about Free Agency that you fail to consider is that a team can negotiate with THEIR player's AGENTs during the year. We did offer Clark a deal PRIOR to FA...he opted (as most players do) to test the market. Not neccessarily to leave your team, but to guage your value, and get the best deal that you can.

Clark did that. He was offered a contract from the Steelers and the Redskins would not match it.

You're trying desperately to justify your own wild speculation with dates and facts that don't support it.

You can't say that Arch was brought in to be a here and there player. You ASSUME that he was since that's the only way signing a guy who can't cover will make any sense. You assume that Greg Williams didn't plan to use him as a Strong Safety...why? Because that allows you to keep making excuses for his ineptitude.


Clark signed a 4 year 7 million dollar deal with a measely 1.65 million dollar bonus, and you are trying to tell the world that he took that and would not let the Skins throw more cash at him. Your Archuletta rant is hilarious.

These are the facts:

Arculetta is terrible in coverage...he's a weak link.
Archuletta got way more than he's worth...he'll make at least 12 million dollars even if he gets cut after two years.
He was brought here to contribute and hasn't.
Oh, and he's overpaid.
He got benched for a player who was only here for 10 days.
He needs to split some cash with Troy Vincent who has done more than he has so far...
Even with our full compliment of players, Archuletta was isolated against Witten twice and beaten twice on the same play. Romo just overthrew the first pass, but they came right back to it, and there he was...toasty as usual, and by a TE??


As for the Bears...it was Randle El who was offered a deal from the Bears..he was offered 6 years 18 million but signed with us. Either way, your theory is weak. Nobody but the Skins would have stuffed his stocking with 10 million dollars in bonus money.

Let's just agree to disagree. I'll never root against a Skins player, but when he's on the field...I'm nervous because he's a problem waiting to happen.

The Hogster wrote:What??? What are you talking about?? Since when did the friggin SLOT receiver become a situational player?? Since when did the slot receiver become a situational player in Al Saunders offense. Since when did the starting (NFC leading Punt Returner) become a situational player?? No, dude, Archuletta has become a "situational player"..and hopefully the situations when he's needed will become few and far between. Where did you using facts go?

Slot recievers aren't always on the field they play in certain situations, kind of like a kick-returner

The Hogster wrote:Nothing happened, you've just fallen a victim to the success of this website...as people get closer to the players that they cover, there is a tendency to lose objectivity.

I'm in Florida how close do you think I'm getting? That about as accurate as the rest of your post (factless)

The Hogster wrote:You are making assumptions that the things that occurred on a certain day, were initiated and fulfilled all at once.

Ryan Clark WAS offered a deal from the Skins. I know my facts...I may not have a line in to Snyder, however, I'm not making anything up.

One fact about Free Agency that you fail to consider is that a team can negotiate with THEIR player's AGENTs during the year. We did offer Clark a deal PRIOR to FA...he opted (as most players do) to test the market. Not neccessarily to leave your team, but to guage your value, and get the best deal that you can.

Clark did that. He was offered a contract from the Steelers and the Redskins would not match it.

You're trying desperately to justify your own wild speculation with dates and facts that don't support it.

Clark was scheduled to visit three more teams, but decided it was best if he did one-stop shopping. So, he followed his instincts during his one and only free-agency trip.

I don't make this stuff up

Adam Archuleta signed a six-year contract with the Redskins on Monday. He was so impressed with his visit to the team on Sunday that he canceled a scheduled visit with the Bears.

more of my wild spectulations

The Hogster wrote:You can't say that Arch was brought in to be a here and there player. You ASSUME that he was since that's the only way signing a guy who can't cover will make any sense. You assume that Greg Williams didn't plan to use him as a Strong Safety...why? Because that allows you to keep making excuses for his ineptitude.

I haven't assumed anything I pointed out what's going on you think I'm trying to justify something or his play, that's YOUR assumption.

The Hogster wrote:Clark signed a 4 year 7 million dollar deal with a measely 1.65 million dollar bonus, and you are trying to tell the world that he took that and would not let the Skins throw more cash at him.

You got his salary right but that's about it in this whole post.

The Hogster wrote: Your Archuletta rant is hilarious.

I don't do Archuletta rants but yours is a bit weathered maybe you should get a new one

The Hogster wrote:These are the facts:

Arculetta is terrible in coverage...he's a weak link.
Archuletta got way more than he's worth...he'll make at least 12 million dollars even if he gets cut after two years.
He was brought here to contribute and hasn't.
Oh, and he's overpaid.
He got benched for a player who was only here for 10 days.
He needs to split some cash with Troy Vincent who has done more than he has so far...
Even with our full compliment of players, Archuletta was isolated against Witten twice and beaten twice on the same play. Romo just overthrew the first pass, but they came right back to it, and there he was...toasty as usual, and by a TE??

See what I mean.

The Hogster wrote:As for the Bears...it was Randle El who was offered a deal from the Bears..he was offered 6 years 18 million but signed with us. Either way, your theory is weak. Nobody but the Skins would have stuffed his stocking with 10 million dollars in bonus money.

He only got five up front and the Bears were offerng 8 I must say again check your facts

The Hogster wrote:Let's just agree to disagree.

Might as well since you seem to be shifting from We out bidded the Bears to we out bidded them for ARE either way both are wrong.

The Hogster wrote:I'll never root against a Skins player, but when he's on the field...I'm nervous because he's a problem waiting to happen.

He's a problem when he's asked to do things that he can't do. With the injuries to the secondary he was the only one that could be put out there, now that the corners are healthy and a true SS is active on the roster, he should be asked to do those type of things "as much". We'll still see him out there but not as exposed as over the last two months.

I'm Out

You're desperate. The first link does not say that the Skins didn't offer him a deal during the year. It simply says that once he hit the market he signed with the first team he visited. It doesn't mention that the team extended him an offer that was well under what he thought he could get in the open market. In fact RYAN CLARK himself said in an interview on the John Thompson show that the "Core guy stuff was just talk from the Redskins. If they wanted to keep me, they could have."

Attaching a link that doesn't refute what I said is about as irrelevant as the rest of your rant. I don't mean 'close' to the team in terms of proximity...I mean, the more visible this site gets to the players...the more some of us may temper our objectivity.

Slot receivers, tight ends, and Fullbacks are not ALWAYS on the field. That doesn't make them "situational players". Sellers and ey aren't always on the field...that doens't mean they are situational players.

A situational player is a guy like Chris Clemons was when he was here ( a third down rusher) or a Nickle corner. Or a Dime DB....if you're saying that Archuletta is a situational LB/Safety....then you're basically saying he's the highest paid backup in history. Either way he's overpaid...I doubt you'll find more money on the bench as a backup safety...*Cough* Safety-backer...guy.

And your comment about the Bears offering him 8 up front is about as backwards as the rest of your post. 8 up front is not more than 10 in two payments...the 10 million is guaranteed, only someone foolish would turn down 2 million dollars in guaranteed money just for 8 million ......but then again, what should I expect...you are on record as saying that Archuletta is worth his money as a situational player.

This is pointless so whatever....the coaches opinion is all that matters, and right now it appears that they think he's not capable of doing what safeties are asked to do. Oh, and I'm not sure that you get Skins radio down in FLA, but just to let you know...it's common knowledge up here that Arch has been benched....in favor of Vincent.

Let's just pray that all the dumb offensive coordinators in the league will be super scared of our new-improved Teenage Mutant Ninja Safety...so scared that they only call run plays.

Glad you went to watch NFL replay....maybe then you can see how your guy gets beat.

The Hogster wrote:You're desperate. The first link does not say that the Skins didn't offer him a deal during the year. It simply says that once he hit the market he signed with the first team he visited. It doesn't mention that the team extended him an offer that was well under what he thought he could get in the open market. In fact RYAN CLARK himself said in an interview with John Thompson that the "Core guy stuff was just talk from the Redskins. If they wanted to keep me, they could have."

Any cotract offered during the seson would have needed cap space that year to sign him any good agent knows he'll get a better deal after the market opens when it open he went to Pitt. and signed his deal what part of that don't you understand

The Hogster wrote:Attaching a link that doesn't refute what I said is about as irrelevant as the rest of your rant. I don't mean 'close' to the team in terms of proximity...I mean, the more visible this site gets to the players...the more some of us may temper our objectivity.

It's hard to refute non-sense thats being made up as you go. I didn't make up any links. How about you provide one or even a reliable source. y objectivity towards the Skins has and will never change and it will remain slanted towards them. And I come with the facts, what are you providing?

The Hogster wrote:Slot receivers, tight ends, and Fullbacks are not ALWAYS on the field. That doesn't make them "situational players". Sellers and ey aren't always on the field...that doens't mean they are situational players.

A situational player is a guy like Chris Clemons was when he was here ( a third down rusher) or a Nickle corner. Or a Dime DB....if you're saying that Archuletta is a situational LB/Safety....then you're basically saying he's the highest paid backup in history. Either way he's overpaid...I doubt you'll find more money on the bench as a backup safety...*Cough* Safety-backer...guy.

I'm going to leave that alone because it just stupid.

The Hogster wrote:And your comment about the Bears offering him 8 up front is about as backwards as the rest of your post. 8 up front is not more than 10 in two payments...the 10 million is guaranteed, only someone foolish would turn down 2 million dollars in guaranteed money just for 8 million ......but then again, what should I expect...you are on record as saying that Archuletta is worth his money as a situational
player.

8 million up front weather you work out or not is alway worth more than 5 now and 5 next year if you are here. Show me where I said anything other than we don't know if he was worth the money or not because we haven't seen him in the role he was brought in to play.

The Hogster wrote:This is pointless so whatever....the coaches opinion is all that matters, and right now it appears that they think he's not capable of doing what safeties are asked to do. Oh, and I'm not sure that you get Skins radio down in FLA, but just to let you know...it's common knowledge up here that Arch has been benched....in favor of Vincent

Let's just pray that all the dumb offensive coordinators in the league will be super scared of our new-improved Teenage Mutant Ninja Safety...so scared that they only call run plays.

Your posts make as much since as your logic. Maybe you should take up a reading comprehension class. Once you do that maybe you'll understand what streaming audio is and why most people feel Red Zebra was built more for the internet than the locals.

I read your post because I thought you finally had something to back up the BS that your slinging, I was wrong. Same BS different size shovel

Your posts make as much since as your logic. Maybe you should take up a reading comprehension class. Once you do that maybe you'll understand what streaming audio is and why most people feel Red Zebra was built more for the internet than the locals.

Hmmm...I was an English Major at UVA and will sit for the bar exam this year after law school...meanwhile you are not making any sense and not to mention use "weather" when I think you mean whether, but I'm not a grammar whore. Since you took a idiotic swipe, I'll stoop to the retarded level. I comprehend the lack of commonsense in your posts...does that count as reading comprehension?

to sign him any good agent knows he'll get a better deal after the market opens when it open he went to Pitt. and signed his deal what part of that don't you understand

I understand just fine, based on this post, it's clear that you don't. If we wanted to keep Clark, we could have. We didn't throw a 10 million dollar deal out there to keep him...we just didn't because he was expendable. We offered him a deal, he took more money elsewhere. Maybe if he used your logic and thought that 8 dollars one year is more than 10 dollars in two paymenents he would have opted to stay here. But no one other than you thinks 8 is more than 10.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?sec ... id=2368816

'm going to leave that alone because it just stupid.

You left it alone because it's correct and makes more sense than your situational B.S. In fact we started the game with 3 Wides and no fullback....Randle El is not a "situational receiver"...you're just delusional and desperate to support your waning argument.

8 million up front weather you work out or not is alway worth more than 5 now and 5 next year if you are here. Show me where I said anything other than we don't know if he was worth the money or not because we haven't seen him in the role he was brought in to play.

The 10 million is guaranteed...what don't you understand about that?

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?sec ... id=2557703

Any cotract offered during the seson would have needed cap space that year to sign him any good agent knows he'll get a better deal after the market opens when it open he went to Pitt. and signed his deal what part of that don't you understand

We had two plans..and were negotiating with players under both scenarios...we re-signed Albright, Cartwright, and even had the Lavar deal worked through before the CBA was extended. Ryan was no different.

I'm not making this up, I'm just exposing your argument.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2366421

In a sense, Archuleta has become the symbol of a high-priced but underachieving defense. Even though the defense has been leaky in numerous areas, at linebacker and especially the pass rush -- no team in football has produced fewer sacks per play than the Redskins -- Archuleta was the only regular to lose his job. Even so, Archuleta is third on the team in tackles with 54 (behind Marcus Washington and Sean Taylor, who each have 55) and leads the team in solo tackles with 44.

"Every player has strengths and weaknesses, and in my opinion and in the opinion of a lot of other people, I excel underneath," he said. "A lot of people said, and I've come under a lot criticism over my career that I can't cover, that I can't do this and I can't do that. Do I agree with it? No. Are there a lot of other safeties who are better in the passing game than me? Absolutely

Reading is fundemental and you normally retain more.
And you can still listen to the radio and mis-interpet what you thought you heard

1niksder wrote:

In a sense, Archuleta has become the symbol of a high-priced but underachieving defense. Even though the defense has been leaky in numerous areas, at linebacker and especially the pass rush -- no team in football has produced fewer sacks per play than the Redskins -- Archuleta was the only regular to lose his job. Even so, Archuleta is third on the team in tackles with 54 (behind Marcus Washington and Sean Taylor, who each have 55) and leads the team in solo tackles with 44.

"Every player has strengths and weaknesses, and in my opinion and in the opinion of a lot of other people, I excel underneath," he said. "A lot of people said, and I've come under a lot criticism over my career that I can't cover, that I can't do this and I can't do that. Do I agree with it? No. Are there a lot of other safeties who are better in the passing game than me? Absolutely

Reading is fundemental and you normally retain more.
And you can still listen to the radio and mis-interpet what you thought you heard

Uh, I live in DC dude....I read the Post everyday....maybe if you read closer, you would see that the article says what I AM SAYIng and not what you're saying. You're defending Arch more than he defends himself. you're pure genius.

Okay Buddy Ryan...you know everything...we paid Arch 10 million to be a situational guy who comes off the bench. Get over yourself. Now run along, read that over...slower this time....and come up with another excuse for Archuletta, or another reason why we paid him so much if we planned to only have him in for 1 out of 4 downs.

Oh and try watching the game...against the Pukes he was playing Safety-backer and still got beaten by Witten.....TWICE.

Your own article refers to him as a back-up safety by the way....the whole world has accepted this but you. IT spells it out clear as day....why can't you understand this?

The Hogster wrote:

Your posts make as much since as your logic. Maybe you should take up a reading comprehension class. Once you do that maybe you'll understand what streaming audio is and why most people feel Red Zebra was built more for the internet than the locals.

Hmmm...I was an English Major at UVA and will sit for the bar exam this year after law school...meanwhile you are not making any sense and not to mention use "weather" when I think you mean whether, but I'm not a grammar whore. Since you took a idiotic swipe, I'll stoop to the retarded level. I comprehend the lack of commonsense in your posts...does that count as reading comprehension?

Stick to english because you don't know much about the team you root for at least not when you try to talk about what you don't see on the field

The Hogster wrote:

to sign him any good agent knows he'll get a better deal after the market opens when it open he went to Pitt. and signed his deal what part of that don't you understand

I understand just fine, based on this post, it's clear that you don't. If we wanted to keep Clark, we could have. We didn't throw a 10 million dollar deal out there to keep him...we just didn't because he was expendable. We offered him a deal, he took more money elsewhere. Maybe if he used your logic and thought that 8 dollars one year is more than 10 dollars in two paymenents he would have opted to stay here. But no one other than you thinks 8 is more than 10.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?sec ... id=2368816

and where does it show that the Skins made a counter offer? FA opened that Monday, he signed Tuesday after being in Pitt all day.

The Hogster wrote:

'm going to leave that alone because it just stupid.

You left it alone because it's correct and makes more sense than your situational B.S. In fact we started the game with 3 Wides and no fullback....Randle El is not a "situational receiver"...you're just delusional and desperate to support your waning argument.

In that situation we only had three wideouts and had we started the game with only two he would have played because that what situational player do when the starter is out. He's started one other game all year and yeah in that "situation" it was a 3 wr set. - Get It.... didn't thing so

The Hogster wrote:[

8 million up front weather you work out or not is alway worth more than 5 now and 5 next year if you are here. Show me where I said anything other than we don't know if he was worth the money or not because we haven't seen him in the role he was brought in to play.

The 10 million is guaranteed...what don't you understand about that?

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?sec ... id=2557703

I understand he got a 5 Million dollar roster bonus this year and a 5 million dollar Roster bonus next year. What part of if he's not on the roster he doesn't get the money don't you get. Meaning if he had signed with the Bears and got cut after 1 year he walks with 8 in his pocket but under the deal he signed with the Skins if he's cut in the off season he'll be 3M lighter than if he had been playing at "home"

The Hogster wrote:[

Any cotract offered during the seson would have needed cap space that year to sign him any good agent knows he'll get a better deal after the market opens when it open he went to Pitt. and signed his deal what part of that don't you understand

We had two plans..and were negotiating with players under both scenarios...we re-signed Albright, Cartwright, and even had the Lavar deal worked through before the CBA was extended. Ryan was no different.

I'm not making this up, I'm just exposing your argument.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2366421

Ryan was a big difference none of thosse guys minus Lavar wanted to test the market, and it's all about self worth.

Just like AA felt he had his best deal in hand, so did Ryan although I'll put "the Danny's" checkbook up against most. Clark chose to become a FS.

Still no facts, your links were so lacking in actual information you would have been better off using the search fuction on this site.

The only go info on ESPNdotCOM is in the pay area and if it's worth reading you probably have already heard about it. But nice try

and where does it show that the Skins made a counter offer? FA opened that Monday, he signed Tuesday after being in Pitt allday.

Wow genius...Ryan Clark was on our team. We were negotiating with OUR players approaching Free Agency during the season...such that when FA started Clark knew what we were offering. A counter offer is not neccessary. Please stop, bargaining obviously isn't your thing.

In that situation we only had three wideouts and had we started the game with only two he would have played because that what situational player do when the starter is out. He's started one other game all year and yeah in that "situation" it was a 3 wr set. - Get It.... didn't thing so

This is illogical and down right nonsense. We started the game with no fullback and 3 wides on the field. Thrash, Lloyd and El...El plays the slot...so whether Moss was in or not, Randle El still plays...dude stick to trying play Cerratto..this is embarassing.

I understand he got a 5 Million dollar roster bonus this year and a 5 million dollar Roster bonus next year. What part of if he's not on the roster he doesn't get the money don't you get. Meaning if he had signed with the Bears and got cut after 1 year he walks with 8 in his pocket but under the deal he signed with the Skins if he's cut in the off season he'll be 3M lighter than if he had been playing at "home"

Because 10 million of his contract here is GUARANTEED!!! Look up that word then get back to me. Even if he gets cut today, he will still get 10 million dollars.....now say this with me 10 is bigger than 8.....see...I knew you could do it.


Since you don't read the article here it is for you in plain English.

Safety Adam Archuleta kept getting calls from his former Rams defensive coordinator, Lovie Smith, who was trying to recruit him to come to the Chicago Bears and help out his defense.



But the Redskins flashed $10 million in guarantees and a contract worth close to $5 million a year, and those thoughts ended.

I'll pass on your capology...you apparently don't even realize that Arch's contract contains guarantees totalling 10 million. I'll pass. and let you think the earth is flat. I'll go with the rest of the world, the AP, John Clayton and the Post before taking your word for it.

From the Washington Post......

Clark's agent, Joel Turner, said that had the Redskins offered something close to Pittsburgh's deal -- $7 million over four years with $1.65 million guaranteed -- at any point in the 2005 season, Clark would have remained in Washington. Keeping Clark at that rate also would have given the team additional money under the salary cap to add a top place kicker or linebacker.

The Redskins outspent every other team in the league in free agency last winter by signing Carter, Archuleta, Lloyd and Randle El to nearly identical contracts worth at least $10 million and up to $30 million apiece over six years. It followed the big-spending pattern set by the franchise in recent years, one that runs counter to that set by successful NFL teams such as Pittsburgh, New England and Philadelphia, which build through the draft and use free agency to supplement their homegrown stars.

The Hogster wrote:Uh, I live in DC dude....I read the Post everyday....maybe if you read closer, you would see that the article says what I AM SAYIng and not what you're saying. You're defending Arch more than he defends himself. you're pure genius.

Try the Times, Examiner, Bram has a pretty good blog or do your one stop reading right hear on the main page.
I'm not defending him, I'm talking about the role he was brought in for and the role he had to play due to injuries. You see it as me making excuses for him and that's your problem. I'm saying the same thing I said back in March, he wasn't brought in to be a cover guy, but to knock heads near the LOS.
You seem to think it's unimaginable that this could be the case that he was brought in yet you have proven you have no idea how he was brought in or what he was paid, then you question what I'm saying. I ain't got .... nothing to prove to you or anyone else that reads what I post on the internet. I hope those that do read this take the time to find out for themselves what's right and what's a bunch of BS. I just put it out there, I've never asked anyone to take me at my word (I'm the king og links). Read it and take it for what it's worth. If you want to question what I post that's cool but have a leg to stand is all I ask. You've went back and forth on this with me for hours and you still miss the point. I sould have known I was wasting my time when you started using using words you had trouble understanding when when thrown back at you. Ypu stooped to bringing up the fact that I'm a volunteer on the site (something else that you are totally in the dark about) and try to use that against me. That didn't work so with a little education (from me I might add) you throw the fact that I'm not in the area with your "Radio" comment, for those that know me will forgive you for that act of posting stupidity because like I said I'm the link king.

The Hogster wrote:Okay Buddy Ryan...you know everything...we paid Arch 10 million to be a situational guy who comes off the bench. Get over yourself. Now run along, read that over...slower this time....and come up with another excuse for Archuletta, or another reason why we paid him so much if we planned to only have him in for 1 out of 4 downs.

Still stuck on 10 Million English major my ass unless crazyhorse1 was your professor. I never said I knew everything, infact you're the one that threw ouy their education level even corrected some grammer to convince your kind. Now your kind know I know more than you so what good did that do. Even if I weren't on the staff here I wouldn't have taken the penny-annie shots that you've been taking, then again I've got the facts and you have, well you got you and a guess you're comfortable with that, so be it

The Hogster wrote:Oh and try watching the game...against the Pukes he was playing Safety-backer and still got beaten by Witten.....TWICE.[/qutoe]
Witten beats Safeties, Corners, LBs that's why he's a top 10 TE in the NFL what's your point? -sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug. I know you have that buggy feeling alot but like I said about AA -give it some time things might change. I doubt it but there's always hope

The Hogster wrote:Your own article refers to him as a back-up safety by the way....the whole world has accepted this but you. IT spells it out clear as day....why can't you understand this?

Hey genius I called him a backup until PP went down. The fans that are pissed are the ones that didn't know what type of player we were signing.
Your hold debate was about paying 10 Million dollar to a situational player. I pointed out ARE is a situational player also and that they both only got $5 million up front. Being a situational player would make you a back up and out of the blue you want to tell me I said he's a back up.

WOW... sorry that's all I could come up with due to the fact that you pick picked up on this after how many post.

You look at a roster add a safety, take one off. I don't know how it works in your english class but it doesn't always means that a addition is a replacement for the subtraction.

Sometimes there is a addition and then a subtraction others you'll have the opposite, In mid March its easy to lose track of what happens when and what date came before what other date. They would fall under math and basically know what's going on day to day, you'll get those lessons sooner or later. Until then if you do a little research before you make a post that has no bases in fact, I could spend my time doing other things.

Okay Buddy Ryan....you're right. We signed Archuletta to be a backup.

Why? Because you said so.

Archuletta isn't overpaid. Why? Because you said so.

Okay Buddy Ryan, you know why he was signed.

Get over yourself.....you exposed yourself as another guy who doesn't know half of what they are talking about.

And I don't throw education out there just to do it. You made the comment about Reading Comprehension....so to show how desperate and pathetic you are, I mentioned that you're wrong as usual. But anyway...re read your own post. It might as well be in Arabic because it makes no sense to anyone speaking English.

You opened your mouth and opinion came out...so did I, difference is yours makes no sense.

You think that the truth is whatever you say it is. Well I'll just let everyone read this foolishness and see what side of the coin they like..


Blah blah blah...you know a lot less than you think you do....and thanks for showing us all just that. I was told not to argue with fools, because those from a distance can't tell who is who.....and on that note...I'll let you sit in the corner mumbling to yourself about Archuletta and how great he is.

The Hogster wrote:Okay Buddy Ryan....you're right. We signed Archuletta to be a backup.

That's the second time you called me out my name, but I'll be Buddy to keep you within the rules

The Hogster wrote:Why? Because you said so.

Archuletta isn't overpaid. Why? Because you said so.

there's your problem there you believe wht you're told because you are too lazy to check it out for yourself, no one wants you to agree with them just unstand where they are coming from but then we run in to that comprhension issue again don't we?

The Hogster wrote:Okay Buddy Ryan, you know why he was signed.

Get over yourself.....you exposed yourself as another guy who doesn't know half of what they are talking about.

I don't mind you calling me Buddy but you don't have to look in the mirror while typing... I'm not the one fool of himself (of full of something else)

The Hogster wrote:And I don't throw education out there just to do it. You made the comment about Reading Comprehension....so to show how desperate and pathetic you are, I mentioned that you're wrong as usual. But anyway...re read your own post. It might as well be in Arabic because it makes no sense to anyone speaking English.

Don't try to justify getting knocked off your high horse you still are showing the same comprehension issues, for the record I read and write Arabic and speak farsi since we're just throwing things out there

The Hogster wrote:You opened your mouth and opinion came out...so did I, difference is yours makes no sense.

Now you have 2 opinions on record. I'd quit while I was behind if i were you

The Hogster wrote:You think that the truth is whatever you say it is. Well I'll just let everyone read this foolishness and see what side of the coin they like..

That was the plan from the start

The Hogster wrote:Blah blah blah...you know a lot less than you think you do....and thanks for showing us all just that. I was told not to argue with fools, because those from a distance can't tell who is who.....and on that note...I'll let you sit in the corner mumbling to yourself about Archuletta and how great he is.

You fell all the way down to flat out calling be a fool. I'm nobodys fool Mr Enlish Major- I undstand you have spent many a years being called that but I'm here to tell you now that don't mean it as a complement.

Maybe you and TO have the same thing, because you must have done in class what he did in team meetings

Oh well, GW took a shot, it backfired, now all he can do is work on getting the most out of AA... there are some things (I guess) he does well... at least he's healthy and provides some depth...

I refer to you as Buddy Ryan because you, a florida guy sitting behind a keyboard, are claiming that you KNOW for certain the Skins signed Arch to be a backup safety. You have actually said that in this thread. Yet, that is nothing but your conjecture, speculation, and opinion. I find it pretty ridiculous, but instead of being a man and agreeing to disagree, you try and tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. Buddy Ryan, you don't know what the plan was when we signed Arch. But common sense tells everyone (except you) that you pay the players according to the contribution that they can make to the team. If he was offered more than Ryan Clark ( a starter at SS) and more than Prioleau ( a safety), then its safe to conclude that we planned on him being a bigger contributer, a starter. You don't pay your backups more than your starters. Your argument that we are doing that with Randle El is retarded because our starting Slot Receiver and PR is not a situational player...you try to conflate the two to support your B.S. Under your theory about 'situational players' FB's, HB's and Slot Receivers are all 'situational players' because they are not on the field each and every down. This is just ridiculous and you know it, at least I would hope that you do.


1niksider has not made any coherent argument that supports his claim that the Redskins signed Archuletta to be a backup safety.

You haven't produced any support for your contention that the Skins will find a way not to pay him the 10 million in guarantees in his contract.

In fact you made an incorrect statement TWICE that if we cut him we will only have paid him 5 million. That's false, he will get 10 million which is more in guarantees than the Bears offered him.

You were also terribly wrong when you claimed that the Skins did not negotiate with Clark based on the date he signed with the Steelers, completely missing the fact that we were in talks with him for the whole year since he's our player. That argument failed so you just move on to the next pile of garbage.


All you have done is linked us to articles that the same thing that we all know. Adam Archuletta was overpaid, he's one dimensional, and he got benched.

You think you 'knocked me off my high horse' when in actuality you've done a horrible job in being an advocate for your position.

It would help if you could show the rest of us why we're so stupid....rather than trying to disguise your opinion as facts. It's rather sad.

The Hogster wrote:I refer to you as Buddy Ryan because you, a florida guy sitting behind a keyboard, are claiming that you KNOW for certain the Skins signed Arch to be a backup safety. You have actually said that in this thread. Yet, that is nothing but your conjecture, speculation, and opinion. I find it pretty ridiculous, but instead of being a man and agreeing to disagree, you try and tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. Buddy Ryan, you don't know what the plan was when we signed Arch. But common sense tells everyone (except you) that you pay the players according to the contribution that they can make to the team. If he was offered more than Ryan Clark ( a starter at SS) and more than Prioleau ( a safety), then its safe to conclude that we planned on him being a bigger contributer, a starter. You don't pay your backups more than your starters. Your argument that we are doing that with Randle El is retarded because our starting Slot Receiver and PR is not a situational player...you try to conflate the two to support your B.S. Under your theory about 'situational players' FB's, HB's and Slot Receivers are all 'situational players' because they are not on the field each and every down. This is just ridiculous and you know it, at least I would hope that you do.


1niksider has not made any coherent argument that supports his claim that the Redskins signed Archuletta to be a backup safety.

You haven't produced any support for your contention that the Skins will find a way not to pay him the 10 million in guarantees in his contract.

In fact you made an incorrect statement TWICE that if we cut him we will only have paid him 5 million. That's false, he will get 10 million which is more in guarantees than the Bears offered him.

You were also terribly wrong when you claimed that the Skins did not negotiate with Clark based on the date he signed with the Steelers, completely missing the fact that we were in talks with him for the whole year since he's our player. That argument failed so you just move on to the next pile of garbage.


All you have done is linked us to articles that the same thing that we all know. Adam Archuletta was overpaid, he's one dimensional, and he got benched.

You think you 'knocked me off my high horse' when in actuality you've done a horrible job in being an advocate for your position.

It would help if you could show the rest of us why we're so stupid....rather than trying to disguise your opinion as facts. It's rather sad.

Dude, you just got taken apart. 1niksder discected your arguments and picked them apart. You went on rants missing points and changing what he said, like saying he said AA was brought in to be a backup when he said he was not brought in to cover. That makes him situational or a role player, not a backup. If you're right, you would want to quote him accurately.

Why dont you read Kazoo...don't be lazy...read.

1nksider wrote:
ne had nothing to do with the other Clark would have still been the starter and AA would have been what he is becoming (a guy that you could bring in and put in the box for run defense or to rush the passer).

He says it right here. A guy that you can bring in..... Bring in from where? The bench. Look, your guy just got his argument ripped up..so get over it.....if you want to come in and squirt your banter...at least read first.

By the way, you can't be a situational starter...and for the record, Archuletta did NOT start the game vs the Cowboys.

You people are talking out of both sides of your mouths. Either you are saying that he was brought in as a situational guy (meaning to blitz or on obvoius downs which would make him a backup)...or he was brought in to play SS and got benched.

None of us knows WHY he was signed, or how Greg Williams planned to use him. 1niksider claims he knows that we didn't bring him in to cover, but that within itself is ridiculous. Against the Cowboys he was in there with 5 other DB's...with Vincent playing safety...and he still had to cover.

This is fantasy and childish to think that you can bring a guy in to play Srtong Safety and expect him to never have to cover. That is uninformed and ridiculous.

Other teams have Coordinators, and if Archuletta comes in only to blitz...it will become obvious and he will be easily picked up. He can't only play the run because it's not always obvious when the other team will run the ball. On 2nd and long is a prime example of a run or passing down. If Arch is in there he will HAVE to cover someone eventually.

We saw it happen twice last week....

Whatever...go back to salivating over your Adam Archuleta Fathead and fooling yourself into thinking that signing him was a great move. You can't play safety or linebacker for that matter in the National Football League and not be expected to cover AT ALL. That's retarded, but if you wanna believe, go right ahead.


Oh and 1niksider says he wasn't brought in to cover? Funny...Greg Williams said himself that he planned to have him cover before the season. Checkmate. Next time learn a lesson, your opinion is just what it is. It's not the truth simply because you say so.

In a story done by the Associated Press Greg Williams Said:

"We don't have any worry about him in the run front,"
assistant coach Gregg Williams said. "We don't have any worry
about him blitzing. We know he'll fit in good with that. The next
thing for him to do is to get more comfortable in our coverage
concepts."

Williams said Archuleta is having to learn new techniques,
including footwork, that weren't taught in St. Louis.

"It's somewhat overwhelming anytime you bring a defensive back
who has been trained in other places," Williams said. "He's had
to learn totally new techniques, totally new verbiage and the
freedom that we give them to make the decisions. He is kind of used
to where the coaches made all the calls and you had to go out and
do it no matter what. What we do in our system is we give the
players a say, and so he's had to get comfortable with recognizing
things fast enough and putting himself in a better position."

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?sec ... id=2557703

From the man that you are trying to talk for. He WAS brought in to be a safety who had to LEARN how to cover in our scheme.


Oh, and this was an Associated Press story, so don't give me that 'no good stuff on ESPN bull....the AP stories are the same whether you get them from the Post, Times, CBS or any news source. Whats your excuse now that your whole theory that you've been lambasting everyone with has been shot to heck? I'm sure you'll come up with another cop-out.

Shakespeare once said that "A fool doth think himself a wise man, but a wise man knows he's a fool." Put simply, you need to understand that you don't know everything if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Good night.

The Hogster wrote:Why dont you read Kazoo...don't be lazy...read.

Why don't you not be lazy and THINK.

Why are you changing his words if you think you are right? The answer is because you want the connotation you desire. A connotation that does not go with his words.

Why are you putting words in my mouth too? You are not responding to what I said, you are making assumptions of my view based on your extrapolation. Guess what, my support of his having argued better than you does not mean logically that I agree with every point.

There is nothing you said in fact that logically contradicts me or indicated I didn't read your rants despite your invitation to not be lazy and read. Sorry.

By indicating that I am glad a player is here should not be an indication that I feel "it was a great move" in getting him. Williams likes to play a lot of people on defense and he has indicated he has no "starters" per se. I think that we should wait and see how this defense, which has so far been very disapointing, looks over the next 8 games. There are 16 games in a season and we have not had everybody healthy yet. Picking up Vincent looks like a good fit for Williams too.
This is a team game and our defense (and our team) will have to start playing to their abilities if we are going to have a decent season.

We start to get back on track this week

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Why dont you read Kazoo...don't be lazy...read.

Why don't you not be lazy and THINK.

Why are you changing his words if you think you are right? The answer is because you want the connotation you desire. A connotation that does not go with his words.

Why are you putting words in my mouth too? You are not responding to what I said, you are making assumptions of my view based on your extrapolation. Guess what, my support of his having argued better than you does not mean logically that I agree with every point.

There is nothing you said in fact that logically contradicts me or indicated I didn't read your rants despite your invitation to not be lazy and read. Sorry.

So whats your point? I'm not trying to impress you, and neither of you have addressed any of the points that were exposed. This had spiraled into an insult fest. My posts contain facts and not conjecture.

I happen to understand that an argument is only as good as its ability to convince the listener. Great, he convinced you. Considering that I support my argument with quotes from Greg Williams himself, that says alot about how gullible you are.

I' m not trying to win a popularity contest here, I just take exception when someone polices the message board telling people that they are wrong for holding a different opinion. Especially when the person is exposed as substituting their own opinion as fact.

Thats lame....especially when they are wrong to begin with. I didn't change any of his words...you can't point to any instance where I did. It''s just that you're too lazy to read the whole thread...so I have to be the remedial guy and catch you up to speed since you MUST talk.

The Hogster wrote:So whats your point?

You lost the debate with 1nikster, I said that if you read my post. He took you apart once, I'll do it again.

The Hogster wrote:It''s just that you're too lazy to read the whole thread...so I have to be the remedial guy and catch you up to speed since you MUST talk.

You keep saying that, but you haven't pointed to anything I missed. I did in fact read the whole thread. I was in it before you and had several posts myself. And I just re-read it and still don't know what you're talking about. Read below, as you like to tell us you were an English major.
You also seem to have an issue with people disagreeing, you to 1niksder: "Since you don't read the article here it is for you in plain English."

BTW, My first post in this thread on page 2, before any of yours, included "“AA could have been a good role player for role player money, but not for this much cap.” Which agrees with your point. You would know that if you'd read the thread.

The Hogster wrote:I didn't change any of his words...you can't point to any instance where I did.

1niksder: "I not making excuses for him, I'm just not giving up on him."
1niksder: I'm not defending AA being signed or is on field activities I'm just able to see what they were thinging when they signed him, and like I said we still haven't seen him in that role so I'll wait to pass judgement.
1niksder: I have said he hasn't played well, I went as far as calulating what it will cost to cut him if it doesn't workout.

You: "you've apologized for his contract, you've apologized for his play."

1nikster: "a guy that you could bring in and put in the box for run defense or to rush the passer."
You: "you KNOW for certain the Skins signed Arch to be a backup safety.
You: "From the bench. Bench means backup."

Backup means you only play when those in front of you are out. The Skins do not consider themselves to have 11 starters on D but several more. You wanted the connotation that he is behind someone, not that he's responsible for playing 2 important roles (run, pass rush) and not 1 (pass D).

The Hogster wrote:This had spiraled into an insult fest. My posts contain facts and not conjecture.

OK, when you called me lazy and told me to read, I called you lazy and told you to think. Now let's review your "fact" based arguments. Regarding to spiriling into an insult fest, you have been non-stop. 1nikster didn't insult you at all other than telling you to check your facts. Here are quotes from Y-O-U during this discussion. Most were to 1nikster, several to me, a couple to others.

- You're smarter than that

- You're the only person who won't admit what the entire world can see

- You've just fallen a victim to the success of this website

- You're desperate

- Hmmm...I was an English Major at UVA and will sit for the bar exam this year after law school...meanwhile you are not making any sense and not to mention use "weather" when I think you mean whether, but I'm not a grammar whore. Since you took a idiotic swipe, I'll stoop to the retarded level. I comprehend the lack of commonsense in your posts...does that count as reading comprehension?

- You're pure genius.

- Okay Buddy Ryan...you know everything

- Wow genius

- I'll pass. and let you think the earth is flat

- Get over yourself.....you exposed yourself as another guy who doesn't know half of what they are talking about.

- How desperate and pathetic you are

- You think that the truth is whatever you say it is

- Why dont you read Kazoo...don't be lazy

- You people are talking out of both sides of your mouths

- This is fantasy and childish

- That is uninformed and ridiculous.

- Go back to salivating over your Adam Archuleta Fathead

- That's retarded

- Shakespeare once said that "A fool doth think himself a wise man, but a wise man knows he's a fool." Put simply, you need to understand that you don't know everything if you want anyone to take you seriously.