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

I like how you're trying to take up for the guy. But its plain as day. This whole ridiculous debate started when he said that the Skins signed Archuleta with no intention of starting him.

He said that Prielou would have started if he didn't get hurt. How does he know that? The Redskins don't publish a depth chart in the offseason. In the pre-season, before Prielou got hurt, Archuleta started. Why is he claiming that Prielou was the true starter? No one knows. Why would a team pay a 'nickle or dime DB" 10 million in guarantees? No one knows.

Iniksider wrote:

Prioleau came into the year as the starter alongside Taylor with Springs and Rogers on the corners. AA would be like a nickle or dime S. Peirson went down and Archuleta was bumped up to a spot that he hadn't signed to play and probably got little work at in the off-season.

Okay....he never says how he knows this. He even goes as far as to say he "probably didn't practice playing Strong Safety. He just proclaims that we all don't know what we're talking about when we disagree with his unsupported theories. I find this hard to believe just like most reasonable people...some of whom had the balls to say so in this thread.


I simply stated that I don't believe he was brought in to be a nickle or dime DB. I think, what most of the world does. We signed him with the expectation that that he could pick put our coverage schemes, just like Greg Williams said out of his own mouth, but he hasn't yet, so he was benched. Period. He may come around, I hope he does...but I'm not making excuses for him like he is.

Greg Williams said in AP Report:

"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."

This was the offseason and totally refuttes his yelling that Arch wasn't brought here to cover.

You can try and help this guy out all you like. It's cute. But in actuality, he is the one telling people that we don't know what we're talking about simply because most of us belive what is obvious. That a team doesn' pay that much for a nickle or dime defensive back.


The rest of this argument was the both of us trying to support our theories

I supported mine with Greg Williams' own words. He supported his with well...nothing but his own comments.

And if you could read as well as you think you can, you would know that I only said I was an English major when he stooped to the level of saying that I dont have Reading Comprehension skills.

I could care less what you or anyone else on a message board thinks of me, so go on and keep making a mockery of yourself. If he was such a great advocate, you wouldnt need to try and fight his battle.

It's opinion, everyone has one. I choose to back mine up with facts or keep my mouth shut. Both of you should try it.

The Hogster wrote:I like how you're trying to take up for the guy....

Your arguments would be a lot stronger if your posts weren't so pompous. From your last one:

"if you could read as well as you think you can"
"go on and keep making a mockery of yourself"
"I choose to back mine up with facts or keep my mouth shut. Both of you should try it."

Despite your claim your views are backed up with facts, as my prior and growing list in this post goes you are a lot more interested in backing up your posts with insults.

And while you claim you can read because you have a degree (Dexter Manley had one too) you say I'm picking up 1niksder's argument when in fact my only quote on your discussion was in agreement with your position. I was arguing he won the debate and supporting that, not arguing AA.

You can argue you can read because of your degree, but your arguments are illogical, you put words in people's mouths, you tell everyone else to read threads throughly while you demonstrate a weak grasp of them yourself, and you say you present facts, but have a hard time tying them to what people actually said.

I'm not impressed. You should have gone to Virginia Tech.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

The Hogster wrote:I like how you're trying to take up for the guy....

Your arguments would be a lot stronger if your posts weren't so pompous. From your last one:

"if you could read as well as you think you can"
"go on and keep making a mockery of yourself"
"I choose to back mine up with facts or keep my mouth shut. Both of you should try it"

Despite your claim your views are backed up with facts, as my prior and growing list in this post goes you are a lot more interested in backing up your posts with insults.

And while you claim you can read because you have a degree (Dexter Manley had one too) you say I'm picking up his argument when in fact my only quote on your discussion was in agreement with your position. I was arguing he won the debate.

You can argue you can read because of your degree, but your arguments are illogical, you put words in people's mouths, you tell everyone else to read threads throughly while you demonstrate a weak grasp of them yourselves, and you say you present facts, but have a hard time tying them to what people actually said.

I'm not impressed. You should have gone to Virginia Tech.

First of all...Virginia Tech sucks....and if you think my posts are illogical now, they would have been worse if I went there.

I'm not being pompus...you are really having a hard time understanding that I don't go around saying "hey I have a degree...blah blah blah". I agree that is lame. But if someone tells me that I don't have "reading comprehension skills", then I will politely let them know that a respectable university thought otherwise. Not bragging, just responding to a cheap insult...I can't believe you keep going back to that when you can read it for yourself.


My posts make sense if you are being objective. I agree that when people start getting fired up in a thread...a lot of the posts get clouded by ego...but my basic argument is strong and I supported it with facts...not just my opinion that "it is because i say so".

He came up with this theory that the Skins signed Arch to be a backup, or dime/nickle Safety. He said that we signed him to only pass rush and play the run.

I simply said that didn't make since to me considering the size of his deal.

He responded by telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about, blah blah blah. So I did what any normal person would do in a debate. I pointed him to the facts.

Call me arrogant or whatever, I'm just not going to succumb to nonsense just because somebody thinks that their opinion is the Gospel. I can agree to disagree, but I won't let someone sell me crap and tell me its chocolate. Either way, I could care less what you think of me...even you haven't shown me where he's offered any support for his argument...because there is none aside from his own banter. Maybe thats enough to convince you, but not me.

The Hogster wrote:I like how you're trying to take up for the guy. But its plain as day. This whole ridiculous debate started when he said that the Skins signed Archuleta with no intention of starting him.

He said that Prielou would have started if he didn't get hurt. How does he know that? The Redskins don't publish a depth chart in the offseason. In the pre-season, before Prielou got hurt, Archuleta started. Why is he claiming that Prielou was the true starter? No one knows. Why would a team pay a 'nickle or dime DB" 10 million in guarantees? No one knows.

Iniksider wrote:

Prioleau came into the year as the starter alongside Taylor with Springs and Rogers on the corners. AA would be like a nickle or dime S. Peirson went down and Archuleta was bumped up to a spot that he hadn't signed to play and probably got little work at in the off-season.

Okay....he never says how he knows this. He even goes as far as to say he "probably didn't practice playing Strong Safety. He just proclaims that we all don't know what we're talking about when we disagree with his unsupported theories. I find this hard to believe just like most reasonable people...some of whom had the balls to say so in this thread.

I stated a opinion and then you come back with your facts that I proved were in fact wrong, yet you still go on why is it you are the only one that doesn't get it?

Archuletta didn't workout with the Redskins in the off-season would have been pretty hard to get in work at Safety if your not there don't you think.

I forgot you don't think.

The Hogster wrote:I simply stated that I don't believe he was brought in to be a nickle or dime DB. I think, what most of the world does. We signed him with the expectation that that he could pick put our coverage schemes, just like Greg Williams said out of his own mouth, but he hasn't yet, so he was benched. Period. He may come around, I hope he does...but I'm not making excuses for him like he is.

Greg Williams said in AP Report:

"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."

This was the offseason and totally refuttes his yelling that Arch wasn't brought here to cover.

you keep posting the same quote, what else was said that day that you keep pointing to?
They say he has to get comfortable with coverage and you hear he's coming in to be a starter?
Did guys that new how to cover when they got here didn't come in as starters, Rogers and Taylor were rookies but thet knew how to cover and the team was hurting for cover guys.

You quote GW saying "We don't have any worry about him in the run front," & "We don't have any worry
about him blitzing". and came out of it with see that's not why he was brought in.

The Hogster wrote:You can try and help this guy out all you like. It's cute. But in actuality, he is the one telling people that we don't know what we're talking about simply because most of us belive what is obvious. That a team doesn' pay that much for a nickle or dime defensive back.

You're about the only one that I come close to saying they don't know what they talking about and I really didn't say it I simply proved it and tried to move on. Yet my user name keeps coming up. I didn't ask for nor do I need any help, you on the other hand might want to seek some

The Hogster wrote:The rest of this argument was the both of us trying to support our theories

Now it's theories, while all along I said "I think this" or "I think that" until you came with your disproven facts that were stepped all over.

The Hogster wrote:I supported mine with Greg Williams' own words. He supported his with well...nothing but his own comments.

You posted one quote from GW and that wasn't the whole conversation and you misunderstood that to boot -

The same article included this:

Archuleta, who played collegiately at Arizona State, replaces
Ryan Clark, an undrafted overachiever and popular locker room
presence who left to sign as a free agent with the Pittsburgh
Steelers. Yet, despite his high price tag, Archuleta did not arrive
as a complete package.

In 69 starts over five years with the St. Louis Rams, Archuleta
intercepted only three passes and forced only three fumbles. He has
yet to make a Pro Bowl. A converted college linebacker, he has
become known as a hard hitter who can play the run much better than
the pass.

What does that tell you about his abillity to be a cover safety on opening day? I'm willing to bet you never THOUGHT about that... I'm starting to identfy a trend here

The Hogster wrote:And if you could read as well as you think you can, you would know that I only said I was an English major when he stooped to the level of saying that I dont have Reading Comprehension skills.

I hope your classes are free and I'll leave it at that.
but you gotta admit I was right on about that comprehension thing

The Hogster wrote:I could care less what you or anyone else on a message board thinks of me, so go on and keep making a mockery of yourself. If he was such a great advocate, you wouldnt need to try and fight his battle.

Don't get you panties and a wad because someone else felt you were wrong, I'm sure there are others that feel the same way he does but don't want to continue to ...

Like you seem to enjoy.

Others feel the same way you do but like you have nothing to really back it up. The fact that he wasn't a cover safety at his previous employer should have been a dead give away if you think about it.

I used the "T" word again didn't I? My bad

The Hogster wrote:It's opinion, everyone has one. I choose to back mine up with facts or keep my mouth shut. Both of you should try it.

Maybe you should have kept your mouth shut then you wouldn't have spewed other peoples opinion has fact only to have it thrown back at you.

Even when you switched your argument that we had out bidded the Bears to get AA to you meant what they offered ARE, you still got it wrong.

I'll say it again if you have nothing knew to add to this then we're done.
BTW - You've added nothing to this little debate for about 4 pages now.

[/img]

When You Earnestly Believe You Can Compensate For A Lack Of Skill By Doubling Your Efforts, There's No End To What You Can't Do.

Just for you AA

Quit crying 1niksider. I'll bet you could poll this website and no one will believe that we signed Adam Archuletta to be a nickle or dime saftety that backed up Pierson Prielou.

No one in their right mind believes your rant that Archuletta was never intended to be a starter. You're just out of excuses. Oh, and he wasn't here during "voluntary workouts" genius. He was here during training camp wonder-genius. And a guy who signs a 30 million dollar deal is expected to do his job once he's here.

The Hogster wrote:Quit crying 1niksider. I'll bet you could poll this website and no one will believe that we signed Adam Archuletta to be a nickle or dime saftety that backed up Pierson Prielou.

No one in their right mind believes your rant that Archuletta was never intended to be a starter. You're just out of excuses. Oh, and he wasn't here during "voluntary workouts" genius. He was here during training camp wonder-genius. And a guy who signs a 30 million dollar deal is expected to do his job once he's here.

There there now...pick up your face and move on to the next assinine argument.

I bet you could start that poll and get that wrong too

Let's do it.

The Hogster wrote:Let's do it.

You did it ... wrong

1niksder wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Let's do it.

You did it ... wrong

Once again, because you said so right?

The proof is out there for ALL to see

The Hogster wrote:

1niksder wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Let's do it.

You did it ... wrong

Once again, because you said so right?

I know you're the reading expert, but have you ever noticed that little sign on your chain that says "yank me?" Let's say for the sake of argument you are more "logical" then us. A fact I'm not conceding, but let's go with it for this post. When you follow your arguments with rants and insults as you continually do, no one will accept your view. As you smugly told us about your impending bar exam, you may want to keep that in mind as a lawyer.

I read your chain with 1nikster and your tone begged me to yank and yank hard. You're like my dog every time the front doorbell rings. I keep telling my youngest to stop doing that for fun, but I suppose I'm on soft ground in saying that when I can't stop doing it to you.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I'm on soft ground in saying that when I can't stop doing it to you.

It's not your fault he does that to people

One 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).

Alright smart guy, let me ask you a question. If I understand your "argument" correctly, you're saying that Clark would've been the starter if he has resigned and AA would've been used as a situational run stopper/blizter. If that's the case, then explain to me why the Redskins would give AA a 6 year $30 million contract with $10 gauranteed to be a role player, yet wouldn't give Clark a 4 year $7 million deal with only $1.65 million gauranteed?? Maybe I'm wrong but isn't a starting safety worth more money to a team than a situational player?

SkinzCanes wrote:

One 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).

Alright smart guy, let me ask you a question. If I understand your "argument" correctly, you're saying that Clark would've been the starter if he has resigned and AA would've been used as a situational run stopper/blizter. If that's the case, then explain to me why the Redskins would give AA a 6 year $30 million contract with $10 gauranteed to be a role player, yet wouldn't give Clark a 4 year $7 million deal with only $1.65 million gauranteed?? Maybe I'm wrong but isn't a starting safety worth more money to a team than a situational player?

Zing! Of course you're right. But he will not and cannot answer this question. All he will say is that you don't know what you're talking about...and he's right because he's like the "Link King".

This is what this whole thread is about, but he just runs from the question and links you to crap that doesn't even relate to the question. His buddy tried to save him, but that doesn't work either.

This is too funny. Not only is he saying that...he also said that Prielou was the starting SS until he got hurt!! Huh?? The Redskins don't even publish a depth chart in the offseason...he just makes up things and tries to pass t off as fact. Apparently Kazoo believes it.

The Hogster wrote:Apparently Kazoo believes it.

Apparently 1nikster is right on your needing remedial reading because you can't read what I wrote either. At some point you may want to try to read some of my posts and learn I am actually anti-AA. I hope your bar exam is oral.

You were right about if you went to Virginia Tech you would read worse because you would have flunked out. You can't bluff your way through their heavily science curriculum like you can at liberal arts schools like Virginia.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Apparently Kazoo believes it.

Apparently 1nikster is right on your needing remedial reading because you can't read what I wrote either. At some point you may want to try to read some of my posts and learn I am actually anti-AA. I hope your bar exam is oral.

You were right about if you went to Virginia Tech you would read worse because you would have flunked out. You can't bluff your way through their heavily science curriculum like you can at liberal arts schools like Virginia.

Jealousy is a disease.

The Hogster wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Apparently Kazoo believes it.

Apparently 1nikster is right on your needing remedial reading because you can't read what I wrote either. At some point you may want to try to read some of my posts and learn I am actually anti-AA. I hope your bar exam is oral.

You were right about if you went to Virginia Tech you would read worse because you would have flunked out. You can't bluff your way through their heavily science curriculum like you can at liberal arts schools like Virginia.

Jealousy is a disease.

I was offered a free ride at both

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

The Hogster wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Apparently Kazoo believes it.

Apparently 1nikster is right on your needing remedial reading because you can't read what I wrote either. At some point you may want to try to read some of my posts and learn I am actually anti-AA. I hope your bar exam is oral.

You were right about if you went to Virginia Tech you would read worse because you would have flunked out. You can't bluff your way through their heavily science curriculum like you can at liberal arts schools like Virginia.

Jealousy is a disease.

I was offered a free ride at both

So where'd you end up going?

SkinzCanes wrote:Alright smart guy, let me ask you a question. If I understand your "argument" correctly, you're saying that Clark would've been the starter if he has resigned and AA would've been used as a situational run stopper/blizter. If that's the case, then explain to me why the Redskins would give AA a 6 year $30 million contract with $10 gauranteed to be a role player, yet wouldn't give Clark a 4 year $7 million deal with only $1.65 million gauranteed?? Maybe I'm wrong but isn't a starting safety worth more money to a team than a situational player?

If you are addressing this to smart guy he want answer unless he's a new member. If it's directed at me then I'd have to ask you what do you think he was offered here. Any contract that was offered during the season would have taken up cap space in the year it was signed (meaning last year). However once free agency started the Skins could have offered more, Clark stated that he wanted to test the market and that's what he did. Bonus money is what a team uses to get players to sign. AA got a signing bonus of $5M this year and a $5M roster bonus next year, as I have repeatedly said if he continues his performance as it is now there is a good chance he won't be here meaning there would be no payout of a roster bonus, The press ran with the $10M and everyone followed suit.
If you look at what happens if a player gets fined it's based on game checks not what the deal was that they signed. They take they base salary and divide it by 16 games and that's the amount that's used if a player is fined one game check.

Had Clark and Adam both been fined 1 game check last week AA would hav lost $36,562.50 and Clark would have cough up $40,625.00 so you tell me who makes the most money. And if AA truely is the highest paid Safety in the league why is Clark making more than him on the weekly bases? (Someone mentioned Matt Bowen awhile back... he'll make more this year in base than Ryan and Adam )

Clark got a offer from the first team he visited and signed it, what he was offered in the off-season was a lot less than what could have been offered once free agency started, but Clark did what he had to do. Had the Skins had a chance to match the offer or made a offer when FA started I think he'd still be here. As you know when FA starts it's hard to talk to "the Danny" with him being so busy making sure Redskin1 is fully fueled and him making sure the pilot has the correct flight plan for his yearly spree.
Clark saw AA had signed and did what most people in his spot would have done and I don't think the Skins counted that into their formula.

Wow...this speaks for itself. I won't interupt your debate...but dude...you can't go by base salary alone to determine who makes more money. You MUST know that. What would you rather have as a player.

5 million in bonus money, and another 5 million in guaranteed money with a base salary of 400,000? Or a base salary of 2 million with 1 million in bonus money.

NO player wants all their income in salary because salary is not guaranteed. It offers no security to have a huge base salary with no guaranteed money. IF you get cut, thats it. They can't take back your bonus money though.

Even still...Arch's guarantees dwarf Clarks total deal.

The Hogster wrote:Wow...this speaks for itself. I won't interupt your debate...but dude...you can't go by base salary alone to determine who makes more money. You MUST know that. What would you rather have as a player.

5 million in bonus money, and another 5 million in guaranteed money with a base salary of 400,000? Or a base salary of 2 million with 1 million in bonus money.

The answer to that question would depend on the length of the contract and how long that player feels he'll be able to play. In AA's case he got a SB of $5M but the latter years of the equal or surpass that amount and he knew when he signed it he won't be getting it. Same with the split bonus if he's cut he won't get the roster bonus next year, so he got $5M upfront blew off $5K in workout money and has a base of $585K. That's a little more that $5.5 this year if this is his only year. Clark on the other hand got $1.6M upfront and $650K this year and his base wont catch up to the bonus pay out until the last year. Playing as he is he'll get all of that money. If AA is cut then he may get a new contract somewhere else but he won't be taking the extra $5M with him. Next year Clark can be pretty sure his $1.5M base will be in the bank each week. To say a player would take this amount over that amount without all the details is just like everything else you've posted lately, lacking information needed to make a informed decision. As far as base goes Clark will make almost 3 times what Archulleta will make next year if he's a Redskin

The Hogster wrote:NO player wants all their income in salary because salary is not guaranteed. It offers no security to have a huge base salary with no guaranteed money. IF you get cut, thats it. They can't take back your bonus money though.

No team is going to put all the money up front, it offers no incentive for the player to play (if he's already been paid). That's why the Skins give relatively large SB but back load the deal (this gives it a higher face value - agents love that), but that helps get the deal done

The Hogster wrote:Even still...Arch's guarantees dwarf Clarks total deal.

Only if they play out the deals, In 4 years Clark will have gotten the full $7M if his play doesn't taper off on the other hand AA will be gone after this year if his play doesn't pick up. Clark's base almost doubles next year and might become a cap issue if he falters, Next year AA's base will only go up $10K but he'll have to improve because the RB would about $1M to the cap.
Clark signed a contract that he won't have to think about until sometime in mid 2008 with $1.7M left on the original deal while Archulleta has a deal that the Redskins may all ready be thinking about re-doing with about $24M left on the deal. Even if he turns his play around and makes it back next year, he'll be looking at a $1M base in 2008 that would quadruple in 2009 to $4M

As a young player with lots of upside I'd go with the deal RC signed, if I were getting up there in age I'd do the deal AA did.

All bonus money isn't guaranteed, just the signing bonus, If a player gets hurt he can negotiate a injury settlement and the first year's salary would be included in those talks. There are workout bonuses, Roster bonuses, and Performance bonuses. The press groups it all together but you actually have to be on the team to get most of them.

Regardless what a player wants it will still have to fit under the teams cap which is a whole "nother" story

1niksder, I thought you had explained things pretty well a few pages back, but your last 2 posts have really put things in perspective.

If Hogster comes back with "10 million guaranteed" I'm not sure what else there is to say.

Irn-Bru wrote:1niksder, I thought you had explained things pretty well a few pages back, but your last 2 posts have really put things in perspective.

If Hogster comes back with "10 million guaranteed" I'm not sure what else there is to say.

He will, count on it.

Irn-Bru wrote:1niksder, I thought you had explained things pretty well a few pages back, but your last 2 posts have really put things in perspective.

If Hogster comes back with "10 million guaranteed" I'm not sure what else there is to say.

Check and mate