PulpExposure wrote:RedskinsFreak wrote:I'm not finding a single on-the-surface reason to like this move.SI.com wrote:In his eight games in Oakland, Hall was beaten 40 times for 552 yards on 66 passes thrown his way, according to data compiled by STATS LLC. He gave up more yards than any defender this season and was tied for third worst in catches allowed.
So, he stinks in pass coverage and I think he's less of a person than he is a player.
He stunk in Oakland's defense, but he's a 24 year old, 2-time pro bowl cornerback...who is playing with us for 500k this year.
How the heck is this a bad move?
If I'm reading you correctly Pulp, your're saying that DeAngelo may have been in a defense that wasn't really a good fit for him. That particular defense and defensive scheme may not have utilized DeAngelo's strengths. Not to mention the fact that the guy on the other side was a flat out stud and QBs were afraid to throw to his side. Translation...Hall got thrown at more which means, of course, he would have given up more yards which make the numbers look skewed. If that's what you're saying, then I agree. He may not have looked like the best player in a TOTALLY DYSFUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATION, so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt, besides it's a done deal now and there's nothing anyone can do about it even if you wanted to.
How many players have we signed that were studs in other defenses and were duds here in DC? I like this signing more than the signing of Adam Archuleta, Carl Banks, Stanley Richard, James Washington, Deion Sanders, Sean Gilbert, Cris Dishman, Dana Stubblefield, Dan Wilkinson, Sam Shade, Bruce Smith and Jeremiah Trotter just to name a few. So by the simple law of averages, we should have more than one of our signings be a stud, besides London Fletcher (Stud signing).
