Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: RedskinsInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Does The Arch Trade Make Sense To You?

Sorry for the delayed post. I had to make a bunch of calls and write the story for the print edition of the paper and am just getting to this now. Okay, so what I have heard so far is that the Skins get rid of Arch Deluxe for a 6th round pick. They part with someone who, while he stunk last year along with just about everyone else on D, was someome that at least a few front office people in that building believed could have contributed to 2007 in a role more suited to his skillset.

They get back a pick that, judging by the Skins past drafting history, won't be here very long. It's also the third time in recent years they trade someone picked in the first round for a sixth round pick (Patrick Ramsey and Gardner, Rod, anyone?). As one member of the organization put it last night, "When are we ever going to win one of these trades?"

So, instead of The Snyder just cutting this guy a check for $5 million like he promised to do in the original deal (and $$$ is no object right, because Dan is willing to out-spend everyone else, right?) , keeping Arch Deluxe around for insurance, and having him count $2.4 million against the cap, they will likely have him count $4 million in dead cap money on the cap instead (barring any other pre-trade restructurings I am not aware of at this time).

So, in that case he'll count $1.6 million more in dead cap than he would have to simply play here? Interesting.

So, the Redskins gave him $5.6 million for one season, 2006, in which he started just seven games, but the Bears, in a system they know the guy has thrived in in the past, will likely have him counting $1.6 against their cap in 2007.

So the Skins would have him count more than twice against their cap this season NOT TO BE HERE than the Bears will to have him be on the field. Alrighty then.

Okay, the Redskins do get him off the books after 2007, but at what price? Would it have killed them to have kept him around for another year?

Yes, he would count much more against the cap to cut a year from now - so in that regard they save some 2008 cap space - but people in the building also thought he could contribute something in a revamped role and had planned on him being back. With Prioleau back as a cover corner and with the team's cornerback depth finally adequate (can you believe Speed-Rumph actually got another NFL contract?) Arch might have shown something if they could use him as originally planned.

Now, what the Redskins (and by Redskins I mean Snyder and Gibbs) would likely tell you in their defense if they could - and they won't because it would come off as airing dirty laundry - is that people in upper management were convinced that AD was the source for the ESPN article, that he didn't want to be here and that it was time for him to move on. There were also concerns after, sources said, Arch had minor surgery on his ankle in San Francisco this offseason by a specialist he found on his own. He had a bone spur removed and people in Arch's camp have told some they believe the player had an overlooked small stress fracture perhaps; the Redskins were unsure the surgery was necessary at first, if at all, and was just one of a bunch of issues the sides didn't seem to agree on (although that's often the case between players and teams in the NFL in 2007. That's the way it goes).

However, AD also handled the situation with class for much of the season during which he was humiliated and made to be the scapegoat for a defense that had serious issues well beyond him alone. He wasn't causing problems in the locker room and he didn't pout like he could have. His teammates weren't complaining about him and many were as puzzled and you and I about the entire affair.

Was it a perfect marriage? Far from it.

Does this trade make any sense? I don't know, you tell me how it makes them a better team.

Would another year of rebuilding fences and trying to rebuild his confidence in a role he is familiar with been a viable option? Seems like it wouldn't have been the worst idea in the world to me.

Does this trade - a move, like all with the Redskins is purely the domain of Coach Joe and The Snyder - have more to do with non-football issues than what would purely make the most sense from a depth and roster standpoint? Smells that way to me.

Regardless, Arch Deluxe will now undoubtedly go down as the poster boy for the 2006 Redskins and their silly spending, much like Deion did for the 2000 flops. But come on, did Lloyd really do anything more than Arch to merit his $5 million bonus getting picked up lickety split? And, should they actually end up getting Calvin Johnson in the draft, wouldn't Lloyd look much more like surplus to requirements (I love the Brits) than Arch Deluxe did to this safety corps?

Okay, that's a lot of questions I've thrown at ya. My guess is the team will merely put out a press release and move on. when we eventually get a chance to press Coach Joe on the trade he'll say that they did what they thought made sense for the team and for Adam and tried to accommodate the player. And that'll be the end of it.

But it seems awful strange to me. I just don't think The Snyder wanted to cut the dude the check. And that's certainly his prerogative. But that's not how it'll be spun.

Anyway, the Skins have been talking to Omar Stoutmire from what I hear and he got favorable reviews inside the organization and would come pretty cheap I imagine. He could sign here in the next few days providing depth at safety. As for the trade, they have some procedural matters to finalize and Arch will take a physical (may have already done it, not sure). Despite the business with his ankle he passed the Skins physical and I would imagine the Bears would have been fully informed of his offseason procedure before making the trade, so I can't foresee any problems with that.

By Jason La Canfora  |  March 20, 2007; 10:34 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Arch Gone?
Next: Arch Redux (I got on a bit of a roll, sorry for the length of this thing)



Posted by: brutus | March 20, 2007 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Are Gibbs and Snyder really on the same page? Really?

Also, ESPN is reporting that the sixth round pick will be sent directly to Denver for no good reason.

Posted by: TB | March 20, 2007 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Care to comment on Arch being the source? Certainly, he was not going to get any run on the Skins. The staff, which has remained the same this year, didn't want him on the field last year. Wasn't he just on the scout team? If he blows up in Chicago, congrats to him. Sometimes it is about principle. And, to the Danny, sending him packing was their only choice. I, for one, can applaud him being given the heave-ho.

Posted by: Brian | March 20, 2007 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Come on Jason!! The guy stunk up the place and had an attitude that could NEVER be repaired after the hard feelings that spilled into the public eye last year. If you want to take your shots at the Danny you won't get any arguement from me but Archuletta was strictly going to be dead wood with the Skins next year. Good ridance to a poor safety. He's over the hill.

Posted by: pd2710 | March 20, 2007 10:49 PM | Report abuse

It's about chemistry at this point, keeping the locker intact and no distractions. Well, at least they are trying to control some of them. Too bad they couldn't move him for a servicable DL, but I guess is 6th is better than nothing. Then again our draft history shows that we did give him away for nothing.

Posted by: Biz | March 20, 2007 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Clayton is reporting the Bears are paying 8.1mil with 5 guaranteed and the Skins get rid of the contract. Do you think Arch reneg'd his deal to get the trade to happen?

Posted by: Ryan | March 20, 2007 10:50 PM | Report abuse

I think keeping Arch here would be tempting faith since Chicago was interested. If Chicago wasn't interested then I think Arch could come in next year with less risk of creating a locker room problem. And if Arch was the source for the T. Friend article then he would almost certainly be a locker room problem (directly or indirectly in that case).

I think especially with the addition of Omar S., the trade does make a lot of sense.

Posted by: AB | March 20, 2007 10:51 PM | Report abuse

So Gibbs is now an habitual lier to us all. Next person gone will be Springs, since Gibbs just said he expects Springs back this year.

I've got a great way for "The Dan" to save a ton of money and it not even count against the CAP.........Drop Mr. Ego Williams and save us all another heartbreaking year. How is it that all of these game changing, playmaking, monsters on defense, etc, etc. players like Arch, Lavar, etc. blow it up until they play for a complete loser like Greg Williams. I can almost guarantee this time next year we'll be going through the same process with London Fletcher. He'll be the next scapegoat for the GREAT Williams.

Posted by: slimskins | March 20, 2007 10:51 PM | Report abuse

I loved Archuleta's workout tape, I loved Archuleta's girlfriend/wife/whatever, and I loved that he didn't seem to be a locker room cancer.

All of that said, he was a lousy player for the 'Skins, and they had to get rid of him. Heck, when they demoted him to special teams, he botched that too! I mean, come on!

Posted by: P Diddy | March 20, 2007 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Good to know that some people from the Skins get the fact that they have been fleeced in trades. First step in getting better is acknowledging they have a problem. I asked Gibbs on a radio talk show towards the end of the season about the Duckett deal and he defended it as a good move. Love Gibbs the coach but don't have faith in their FO. Maybe they are getting it now.

Posted by: mike | March 20, 2007 11:01 PM | Report abuse

You guys are acting like he was a cancer. He didn't have any problems with his teammates. He didn't say a word until the last week of the season, when even then he didn't say anything you wouldn't expect after the role he was put in.

But that means it's a smart football decision to give him away entirely for next-to nothing? He is so bad that he isn't worth taking a look at for a second season, yet an astute and tight-fisted organization like Chicago thinks enough of him to take on the $5 million bonus.

And I am supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the Skins. Seems like Arch Deluxe and the Bears got what they wanted and the Skins got nothing.

Hell yeah I am pointing the finger at Snyder. He gives the guy $5.6 million in one year then gives him away and takes a cap hit just to get him out of here the next. You tell me, is it the players or the organization? And don't blame the coaches, they have no say in any of this stuff beyond the normal personnel meetings. We've been through this time and again.

I guess Coles, Lavar, AP, Arch, they're all horrible people who were killing chemistry, and thankfully Danny and Coach Joe are on the case righting all the evil. Sure. That's awful naive.

What kills the chemistry here and has made the perpetual losers is all the silly decisions they make - who they reward and who they blame; who gets paid and who does not; who are the favorites and who are on the outs with the owner - and the impact it has on the locker room. There's a cycle here folks and you need to have some instittional memory with this stuff. This ain't nothing new in these parts.

Trust me, the players are looking at this like it makes no sense whatsoever and I imagine the coaches are too. But it's standard operating procedure around here and its endemic of all the losing that has gone on. More cap gymnastics and other strange stuff that doesn't add up from a football perspective.

Posted by: Jason La Canfora | March 20, 2007 11:02 PM | Report abuse

By the way, not defending these idiots, but HEALTH and AGE are two KEY differences between Lloyd and AD.

Agree that they'll be trying to work the same deal with B. Lloyd in about a month after they trade this year's draft and next for Calvin Johnson.

Posted by: TB | March 20, 2007 11:02 PM | Report abuse


How does this NOT make sense to you?

The 'Skins just got rid of this dude's contract.

It was the richest contract ever for a safety.

Having him count $4 million against the cap instead of $2.4 million this year is NOTHING compared to what they cleared off for beyond this season.

That huge contract is basically gone now.

If you want to criticize the 'Skins, criticize them for signing him in the first place.

But to say this deal doesn't make sense is absurd.

Posted by: Cliff Huxtable | March 20, 2007 11:03 PM | Report abuse

TB - good point on the age and health. but overall i guess my point is this team always seems to be digging itself of one self-inflicted hole or another instead of making real progress and not making such snap judgements on things. maybe that sums it up best.

Posted by: Jason La Canfora | March 20, 2007 11:05 PM | Report abuse

Does JLC have so info re: the Skins desire to trade up to nab Calvin Johnson?

Posted by: Dylan | March 20, 2007 11:09 PM | Report abuse

The good news about this is pretty subtle. it means the Skins cap room is going to be tight this year. Which means no more dumb signings. And cap space could open up a bit next year.

They make way too many cap driven decisions and get nailed by dead money to boot. That culture has got to change and eating the cap hit this year, not letting it be a future cancer, is a step in the right direction.

Posted by: AL | March 20, 2007 11:09 PM | Report abuse

mike said: Good to know that some people from the Skins get the fact that they have been fleeced in trades.

I couldn't agree more. This is by far the biggest news in JLC's post.

Posted by: Clinton Hill | March 20, 2007 11:13 PM | Report abuse

I think getting rid AD after one year for $5.6 million rather than getting rid of him in 2 years for $10.6 million is a much better deal. As bad as this year was, why would we double the blunder by giving him a $5 million bonus.

But couldn't we have at least asked Denver for 5th round pick, they owe us that much. On second thought, nevermind, Shannahan likely would have convinced Snyder to trade our first round pick on a "rejuvenated" Courtney Brown and then sold him one of John Elway's used cars.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 11:16 PM | Report abuse

now how about we sign Ken Hamlin?JLC how does the organization view him?I find it odd that no one has signed him yet.

Posted by: woowoo | March 20, 2007 11:17 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, but I don't see the Skins getting fleeced in the trade. Arch is a 30 y.o. safety who can't cover (something that is usually expected of DBs) and who had a public falling out with a team that many thought would ultimately cut him. If Arch hadn't been benched by mid-season and produced decent numbers and some actual ya know, game tape, he might have been worth more.

As for Rod Gardner, how's he working out for Green Bay, I mean Kansas City, I mean....the Arena League. Does the guy even don a uniform anymore? BTW, the 6th rounder we got for him was used to draft Golston who isn't starter material yet, but looks promising.

Finally, Ramsey got shafted right? Well apparently the Jets didn't think enough of him to keep him around and the Broncos signed him to back up their QB of the future. Basically, like it or not, but Ramsey's best shot in the league is the be a career backup who might be outta the league before he turns 30. So, I'm not exactly pissed about getting a 6th rounder for him.

What should be bashed is that the FO used 2 1st rounders on Gardner and Ramsey in the first place and gave Arch such a big contract.

Posted by: Dylan | March 20, 2007 11:23 PM | Report abuse

Which member of the organization feels the the team has been fleeced in trades? Not anyone in power I'd assume. I'd also wager that this person would be fired pretty quickly for sharing that view w/ DS or JG. Reality is, in 2005 the team flukishly went to the playoffs in spite of the bad management. Snyder and Gibbs feel that this was the rule rather than the exception and believe that if only the season would hurry up and get here, everyone would see that their new philosophy of valuing the draft (aka trading next years #1, #2 and #3 to Tampa for Calvin Johnson) will payoff with a Lombardi.

Posted by: TB | March 20, 2007 11:25 PM | Report abuse

I believe that Archie was a horrible fit and obviously bombed here. The following people are to blame in this order for the horrific signing.
1) Gregg Williams: He hand picked Archie. He truly believed that he would be that "hybrid" safety who would be able to blitz at will and knock opposing receivers senseless if they crossed his ground. WRONG!!!!!
2) Joe Gibbs: Let's be honest, he is the one who runs the show around here, all final personnel says goes through him. He was the one stupid enough to give Gregg Williams authority to make the choice of bringing Archie here. Joe Gibbs has been away from the game too long to fully evaluate players so he would trust his handy assistants on recommendations. Coach Gibbs did not realize Archie's skills were not suited for the packages that were going to be used for him.
3) Dan Snyder: When is he going to realize that the stucture of the management matrix used to handle off season moves and player evaluations are completely non sensical. Too many draft picks wasted, too much money thrown in the garbage, too much dead cap space all used for players who are not worth it. He is too impulsive with making moves. Denver has made a living out of sucking a ridiculous number of draft picks based on his eagerness and lack of negotiating ability.

Posted by: gbanian | March 20, 2007 11:26 PM | Report abuse

I would've been much happier to jettison Lloyd, and I would've understood the logic behind giving him another year, but the terms seem reasonable and definitely reduce risk for the team.
I've got nothing against the man, but in the end, he wasn't a complete player, and it was a force-fit to get him on the field next year. Given our current players, he and Marshall would compete for the same type of spot, and I know which one would get -- and probably deserve -- the snaps.
If they paid the next $5M, and he still didn't work out, then the 2008 cap hit would be over $7M -- and this blog in particular would be screaming for his head on a platter at any cost. Why take the risk? As far as the skins are concerned, they took a potential $9M hit and reduced it to $4M.

Posted by: cload and daggar | March 20, 2007 11:29 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Mr Huxtable, this trade makes complete sense for the Skins. JLC, did you not watch this guy play last year? If he wasn't getting toasted, he was whiffing on tackles. If he wasn't whiffing on tackles he was missing on blocks as the Upman on punts.

And never mind the fact that this trade frees up considerable room under the cap next year, presumably.

BTW, I can't believe you said "Calvin Johnson"...

Posted by: duck | March 20, 2007 11:29 PM | Report abuse

I think cutting Arch is smart because once your in Williams dog house you never get out. And in 08 that Cap Space can be used wisely. I understand he was a great guy playing out of position with Taylor but it was a good move for both parties.

Posted by: tjzukoski | March 20, 2007 11:29 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't mind seeing if we could trade a 7th for Ryan Clark. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Clark is some stud, but he's serviceable and if he can help get Taylor comfortable again, he'd be worth a 7th rounder.

Posted by: Dylan | March 20, 2007 11:31 PM | Report abuse

Yet another example to add to the thesis by that dude at the AEI as to why the Redskins will continue to be bad and the Patriots will continue being good.

The skins better have one heck of a season this year, because their offseason moves have made our HOF coach look like an idiot.

Posted by: Redskinrex | March 20, 2007 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Excellent update Jason. I must agree, how in the world do they only negotiate a 6th round pick? A 6TH ROUNDER! He was a previous 1st rounder and performed fairly well in St. Louis so can anyone explain the 6th round deal? This front office is amazing!

Posted by: CF | March 20, 2007 11:33 PM | Report abuse


I feel ya with the institutional memory, and agree with your Meta analysis, but I think your reaching on your critism here on this one.

He had to go, if he was deepcover than that couldn't be fixed. The mistake was in signing him, if the exit strategy doesnt make complete sense its b/c the whole deal was flawed. Some times you got to move on. The pick is better than nothing, Goldston was 6th maybe lightning strikes twice...

You obviously have a thorn in your heal about Lloyd and I basically agree but the previous point about youth and health is valid and skill players can rebound faster.

I'm a fan and I know thats a whole different spin, but I think the offseason moves have shown a smarter way forward and some hits have to be taken to get out from past mistakes.

Was Arch mistreated, yeah probably...Manboobs is an ass....could he have been a used this year as a specialist maybe...but the confusion and vitrol of this post is a bit over the top....

I am glad Sehorn the Second is gone and confidant the 6th round pick will be a future all pro...

Mmmmm that kool aid was good...goes down smooth...

Posted by: chris larry | March 20, 2007 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Dylan, do you remember who we passed up to pick up Gardner? The next pick was Santana Moss. Maybe with Santana's game play and Ramsey playing for the old ball coach it would have been a different game and he wouldn't have left so suddenly (I still think Spurrier did a terrible job adjusting to the pro game). I liked Coles and all but Santana was much more dynamic.

I think Ramsey was better than the opportunity given to him. The Jets had a huge contract with Pennington who was more experienced and has been in one system for longer than 2 years. He didn't have a chance there nor here. He may be a career backup but that is because we destroyed his chances (i.e. we let Trent Green sit on our bench for 5.5 years and he had been putting up 3.5k+ yds per season). I know this was about the Arch Deluxe trade (Ryan Clark, sigh) but I just had to through that in there.

Posted by: Richard | March 20, 2007 11:39 PM | Report abuse

1)Gregg Williams: He hand picked Archie. He truly believed that he would be that "hybrid" safety who would be able to blitz at will and knock opposing receivers senseless if they crossed his ground. WRONG!!!!!
2) Joe Gibbs: Let's be honest, he is the one who runs the show around here, all final personnel says goes through him. He was the one stupid enough to give Gregg Williams authority to make the choice of bringing Archie here. Joe Gibbs has been away from the game too long to fully evaluate players so he would trust his handy assistants on recommendations. Coach Gibbs did not realize Archie's skills were not suited for the packages that were going to be used for him.

No I think he may have though right but what he didn't expect was Smoot leaving (who at least knew the system) and Springs being hurt for a good part of it. If he's a hybrid then of course he more than likely couldn't cover. I blame him for being so arrogant to think it was his system and not the players.

Joe Gibbs I agree with you 1000%. He needs to get back to the x/o and bring in a GM. That is the only we we'll be able to get this under control. Hell make Marty the GM.

Posted by: Richard | March 20, 2007 11:45 PM | Report abuse


Tom Friend.

Pass it on ...

Posted by: Birdie | March 20, 2007 11:50 PM | Report abuse

I wish I could have been a fly on the wall when Wilbon heard about this one. LOL

Posted by: JustMe | March 20, 2007 11:52 PM | Report abuse

Jason, I'm not saying you're wrong in your report of the cap figures, but you did mention the Redskins were behind closed doors all day yesterday hashing out the deal. If they are trading him straight up for a 6th round pick how much hashing out is there. In all honesty, the 6th round pick is 2nd to last in the round. I know they haven't made the brightest moves in the past, but is there a lot to hash out in this deal if it's Arch for a 6th unless there is some restructuring of his contract to save the Skins cap space this year as well.

Is there any difference in the cap savings this year if they trade him instead of just releasing him? I know a draft pick is a draft pick, but one that late isn't much different then getting an undrafted FA

If it is as simple as them taking a 6th round pick for the sake of just getting something for Arch then so be it b/c his cap figure is gone for 2008, but I just don't see this being the whole story.

Posted by: CVille | March 20, 2007 11:59 PM | Report abuse

I see the point that on some level it made sense to give it another try. Still I would say that this was a virtual one time only get out of jail free card. If we kept him another year and it didn't work out the cap would have been much larger. The $5 million would have been good money after bad. Maybe AD will be the last of the ill considered free agent signings

Posted by: Chris | March 21, 2007 12:03 AM | Report abuse

Not only did they have Pennington in NY, but they're really high on this guy Clemens. So Ramsey was being paid too much to be a #3 and he'd rather go somewhere he can be at least a #2. He hopefully has landed on his feet in Denver. I always thought Ramsey was fun to watch, though is OL at the time was not fun to watch. I think Campbell is fun to watch. Brunell is not fun to watch.

Posted by: skinfanman | March 21, 2007 12:04 AM | Report abuse

Cville -- They had to figure out how to transfer the cap hit for the "guaranteed" $5M to Chicago. If you want to look at it in stark terms, imagine that Danny paid Chicago $5M for the #207 pick. Not a great deal, but it's just money...

Posted by: cload and daggar | March 21, 2007 12:09 AM | Report abuse

In answer to the original question, the Skins need be overjoyed at this deal. They got the Bears to take AA and his contract off their hands, and got them to give up a pick also. A year ago the signing of AA was bad, and giving up on Ryan Clark was bad. But this deal this year is good. You know, the Steelers are under new management. Maybe they'd take a 6th round pick for RC.

Posted by: skinfanman | March 21, 2007 12:12 AM | Report abuse

Guys I love the Ryan Clark talk, real redskin fans here...

Posted by: Richard | March 21, 2007 12:17 AM | Report abuse

I think overjoyed is overstating it a bit. This did not improve the team in any real measurable way. It makes something out of a bad situation, it takes what could be/could become a real distraction off the table.
I don't know how/if the Deep Cover thing plays into this; kinda hope not. And it doesn't get the FO off the hook for their comedy of errors.
But there's something to be said for just moving on...

Posted by: cload and daggar | March 21, 2007 12:29 AM | Report abuse

"And, with the 207th pick in the 2006 NFL draft, the Indianapolis Colts select Antoine Bethea, Safety, Howard University"

I'm not sayin', and I'm not just sayin' either.

Posted by: cload and daggar | March 21, 2007 12:32 AM | Report abuse

I know we get the contract off of our books ... but a 6th pick in 2007 thats it ?!!

Woulda made mroe sense for it to be a conditional pick in 2008 (and either a 4th or 5th depending upon performance).

Posted by: Thai | March 21, 2007 12:38 AM | Report abuse

If I'm not mistaken, the Skins drafted Kedric Golston with the 6th rounder they got from the Jets in the Ramsey deal last year.

Posted by: Cliff Huxtable | March 21, 2007 12:41 AM | Report abuse

I've been saying we should give Pork Chop a second chance despite the big bust but you know what I echo what others have said. If he's happy and is going to go on to Chicago and be productive good for him and yes we did clear long term cap room and that is also good. Maybe just maybe the FO is willing to take it on the chin a bit for long term stability and growth.

I blame Man Boobs more than anyone else as far as how PChop was treated. Yeah the Danny negotiated a ridiculous contract for him AND Lloyd but Williams made those personnel decisions during the season.

Anyway I wish Arche luck and I hope he does well in Chicago and now we can get back to endless speculation about the draft.

Posted by: sfskin | March 21, 2007 12:46 AM | Report abuse

where did this rumour about getting back Ryan Clark came from? I can't find it

Posted by: DCdangerous | March 21, 2007 12:57 AM | Report abuse


The only rumors about Ryan Clark returning to DC are those being disseminated here on this board. At this point, it's not even a rumor, its pure speculation. I mentioned it because I thought it might be a good idea to offer to trade a 7th rounder to Pittsburgh in exchange for Clark because: (1) although he is no Pro Bowler, he was serviceable and hit harder than any other 185 lb. kid I've ever seen; (2) reportedly developed a strong rapport with Taylor that no other player has been able to duplicate; (3) Clark's cap figure would be small enough that if a better option came along, we could afford to put him in a reserve role; (4) he's familiar with GW's scheme and the coaching staff likes him; and (5) Pittsburgh relegated Clark to back-up duty and might be willing to trade him for a low round pick.

Posted by: Dylan | March 21, 2007 1:04 AM | Report abuse

The 6th round pick was in direct correlation with the Bears picking up the $5 million cap hit. In my mind, if that $5 million cap space can be used to retain Shawn Springs, hell yeah, I'm all for it.

Yes, the Skins absorb an extra $1.6 million on this years cap, but history has shown us that the FO hands out restructured deals to vets that stretch over at least 3 years. If the Danny can placate SS with a restructured bonus using ArchDealuxe's $5 large, I'm down with it. The Bears sixth round pick is a gift as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: Skinny | March 21, 2007 1:27 AM | Report abuse

The DANNY is the problem!!!!!! Cut him!!!!!

Posted by: Luvsmesumme | March 21, 2007 1:56 AM | Report abuse

The Redskins are on the bad end of a trade. Again. At least this time we got some cap relief next year out of it. Still, I would have pushed for a conditional 3rd-5th in 2008 instead of a face-saving, cop out 6th in 2007 that will likely be a Kili Lefotu or something for a starting NFL safety.

Posted by: BurgundyNGold | March 21, 2007 2:10 AM | Report abuse

Covering the 'Skins up close and personal must lead to a rather Machiavellian way of viewing life but you are over-thinking this one, Jason.

This move makes sense in a lot of fundamentally sound, football-related ways:

Item 1: Arch wore a target by game 3 last year. He was a cleat-wearing victim waiting to happen. Any idea that he might be Doug Plank in Williams' updated 46 was shot to Philadelphia when Prioleau went down.

Item 2: We now have a free roster spot to be filled by someone who might not blow punt protections.

Item 3: Millions in cap relief in 2008. It looks (so far) like we will have a nearly full draft in 2008 and our new GM, Eric DeCosta, can play in FA as well. Hey, a guy can dream.

Item 4: Getting a pick in the draft for a guy who played safety like Nate Newton played drug kingpin, even pick #207, is a win.

In short, leaving aside Deep Cover as an excuse, there were plenty of reasons to make this deal.

As a closing aside, if we got Calvin Johnson out of this draft, I'd have to suspect you of sacrificing Crazy Ray to the draft gods.

Posted by: Meatsnack | March 21, 2007 4:42 AM | Report abuse

The "cap relief next year" arguement only works if you assume this clueless FO doesn't use that extra cap space to make more gigantically stupid free agent moves next year. Personally, I'm not couting on it.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 4:56 AM | Report abuse

Pork Chop, we hardly knew ye.

Looks like I missed a really exciting day/evening here in RI Blogland. Some of you are having way too much fun.

To the occasional JLaC critics: 1) Jason has a real job to do besides this blog, as well as a family; unfortunately for you ingrates, those things have to come first sometimes. 2) As previously mentioned, Jason is on "baby watch" this week, with a new arrival due shortly. He was supposed to be on vacation this week. That he is reporting/responding to us at all is above and beyond the call of duty. 3) Jason's credibility with his employer and with the regulars here is well-established. You should be so good at what you do for a living. 4) Short posts are not the norm here. If you don't like long posts, scroll past them. 5) There are lots of other places you can be if you think others do a better job. It's not likely you will be missed here.

Other thoughts will follow, naturally.

Posted by: Ocho-Ocho | March 21, 2007 5:20 AM | Report abuse

Personal editorial comment:

I have no idea who these other late-night posters are. It's kind of strange to see other posts popping up at night.

Welcome, fellow late-night posters.

Posted by: Ocho-Ocho | March 21, 2007 5:23 AM | Report abuse

Just to get a few "facts" straight on the Archuleta deal:

1) There is no cap relief in 2007 from the "trade". The cap hit increases from $2.4M to $4.0+ Million.

2) The $5.0 million bonus "saved" is just some of Snyder's pocket change not being paid out. Snyder has plenty of money to pay Springs or anyone else as much as he wants. Money is not the issue - he is limited by the salary cap.

3) I have seen several "reports" in the media that indicate the draft pick is a "conditional 6th round pick for 2007". Typically, the conditions are based on the player's performance with his new team. Assuming those conditions are met, the adjustment would undoubtedly be made in 2008. (For example, the teams swapping a 4th for a 6th in 2008.)

4) Calvin Johnson (or similar boondoggles) aside, no cap hit for Archuleta in 2008 means cap space to similarly ditch BLloyd next March. Who knows - there's always a chance that San Fran might want him back! (Buyer/seller remorse)

5) If this whole Archuleta affair doesn't amply illustrate to Snyder the importance of having a real and independent General Manager, then nothing ever will.

Posted by: Ocho-Ocho | March 21, 2007 5:40 AM | Report abuse

Definitely the right move. Get him out of here. Would've created too much dissension in the locker room.

Posted by: Missouri Skins | March 21, 2007 5:42 AM | Report abuse

On an unrelated note, regarding the RI March Madness "contest":

My bracket is living proof that one can go "from first to worst" in the same tournament. In my own defense, I am not really a basketball fan (I really like the 2-minute game idea) and spent all of about 93 seconds making my brilliant picks.

In an NCAA B-Ball Tourney related note, here's a fun link about school "mascots". ***Important disclaimer - If you are offended by crude/vulgar language, you may want to skip this site.***

Posted by: Ocho-Ocho | March 21, 2007 6:33 AM | Report abuse

You idiots dont get it? Unless Dannyboy opens the vault, players do not want to play here!They see & here about players trying to get out(champ,coles,lavar Payed to get out,& arch)Word is out this is a dysfunctional franchise and will overpay!No loyalty at all!!!

Posted by: throw-up | March 21, 2007 6:53 AM | Report abuse

I finally found someone who likes LaRon Landry being picked by the Redskins. What do you think, AMTTS?

Posted by: Ocho-Ocho | March 21, 2007 7:14 AM | Report abuse

Hear, Here!!! LMAO!

Posted by: Ocho-Ocho | March 21, 2007 7:16 AM | Report abuse

A really good off-season move would be to get a REAL General Manger. Synder can clearly run a profitable football team & CAN NOW support a coach without interfering . And Coach Gibbs can STILL coach despite last years record. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO PLAYER SELECTION, SALARY CAP & DRAFT ISSUES....they BOTH SUCK

Please get a GM that can do the job......THIS WILL GO A LONG WAY TO SECURING THE SKINS LOMG TERM FUTURE !!!!

Can anybody please tell me what VALUE Vinnie C brings to the Redskins ? ? ?

Posted by: long suffering skins fan in australia | March 21, 2007 7:18 AM | Report abuse

No other team has as many high profile players trying to get out? Dont fool yourselfs into thinking that players who restructure are team players,they get the money up front and spread it out with more yrs!

Posted by: throw-up | March 21, 2007 7:22 AM | Report abuse

If the front office was convinced he was the source of the ESPN article then they made the right decision to get rid of him, even if they took a beating on the $. No one needs a sniper in the locker room.

Posted by: Daytime | March 21, 2007 7:24 AM | Report abuse

For all of you Combine freaks, here are some interesting numbers:

Posted by: Ocho-Ocho | March 21, 2007 7:26 AM | Report abuse

Oops - I should of read the "Front Office Rumblings" blog posted on 19 March first - before my rant

Oh what the heck....GET A NEW GM DAMN IT ...and GET ONE NOW !!!

Posted by: long suffering skins fan in australia | March 21, 2007 7:27 AM | Report abuse

I was thinking when i heard about this that I can't belive Chicago is willing to give anything near this for Arch! They have done some strange things this offseason.

Posted by: Jason | March 21, 2007 8:09 AM | Report abuse

I agree with the premise that silly contracts, trades and overall poor decisions by the front office lead to players losing confidence, etc. However, while we have drafted badly and overpaid FAs in the past, I'd dare say that the FO hasn't done a bad job of getting rid of players that weren't helping the team.

Lavar, whatever you want to say about him, was an injury concern first and foremost. Ramsey? Gardner? ...a testament to our poor drafting, not letting good talent get away. Moss for Coles? I think we got the better end of that one.

Things get a little shaky when it comes to Pierce and Clark, although I think Pierce has had some injury troubles too. Trotter sort of burned us because he went back to his home team. Arch might do the same for Lovie Smith, but what can you do when a player only excels for a few particular coaches in a few different systems? Yes, we could have kept the dude around and tried to make him fit, but I think a big part of making that work would be a respect for Williams and his system. If he really was the source for that espn article, I don't think that would have happened.

And, maybe Smoot will be our way of making another organization look silly. Maybe we'll be the ones who got the better end of the deal in that case. Maybe I'm reaching.

Posted by: nyskinsfan | March 21, 2007 8:16 AM | Report abuse

If Greg Williams did in fact hand pick arch after watching film of him, etc.. and he's suppose to take over after Gibbs retires.. we're in a heap-of-trouble.. we're in desperate need of a GM who knows talent and can make good deals..

Posted by: vpar | March 21, 2007 8:34 AM | Report abuse

JLC was right -

John Clayton reports...

"The Redskins made another move in the defensive backfield on Tuesday, reaching agreement on a one-year deal with safety Omar Stoutmire."

I guess we can put a nail in the coffin on those Ryan Clark rumors...

Posted by: CC | March 21, 2007 8:39 AM | Report abuse

There has to be more to the Arche trade than is showing above the surface. I think that based on what was happening here it made good sense to get rid of him. He would have continued to take up a roster spot without contributing much. Whether it was his fault or the coach is really not relevant at this point. If they can fill the spot with someone who will contribute to the team effort this year they are far ahead in everything except the immediate cap hit.

Frankly, it amazes me that they were able to get anything for him.

In any event, I think that the team is better off without him this year and that he may have a chance to resume a decent career with Chicago. In that case, both he and the skins will come out ahead.

Posted by: oldskinsfan | March 21, 2007 8:40 AM | Report abuse

It seems the Skins are learning to be loyal. Gibbs always seemed to be loyal to a fault back in the 80s, at least as far as Beathard was concerned. But now bringing back Smoot and possibly Stoutmire. Fletcher is a known quantity having played for GW. And re-signing Wade, Yoder, etc. And signing Betts, Thomas, and Sellers to extensions. The FO and approach to personell is evolving. They're learning and in that there's room for optimism.

Posted by: skinfanman | March 21, 2007 8:43 AM | Report abuse

I hear Deion Sanders wants to come back to DC...

Posted by: Chris | March 21, 2007 8:47 AM | Report abuse


Yes I would rather see Saunders as future Head Coach.

As for bringing back old players, there is one flaw... they are that much older. Saying that we are learning by bringing back past mistakes does not preclude anything was learned. There were some things realized, but learning the error of our ways only plays out in the future concerning FA and keeping our players.

But ultimately it comes down to the crazy contracts we sign. Our whole situation is attribtued to the first part of the free agent process... evaluation of talent. Then it moves to the Little Mans need to outbid everyone.... now our cap is screwed.... we release players we would love to keep (Gibbs on every FA departure "We would have loved to keep him, but it just did not work out").... Pick up FA to replace, which never pans out (save Moss/Coles)... Get rid of that player the next year....The cycle continues..

Posted by: PDSquared | March 21, 2007 8:56 AM | Report abuse

PDiddy - I here ya. I just ran ArchKarai thru my personal "Draft Pick Equalizer Trade Thingy" and:

F&(*ing TEN wife + workout video + missed tackles + 7.3 sec 40 time = at least a 4th rounder.

Seriously..."when are we going to win one of these trades"?????? The residual backlash of a Grilliams benching, I guess. Thanks Grill! I'd like to trade yo @ss for a 6th rounder.

I guess I can withdraw my pool boy application to the Archkarai estate.


Posted by: Pub Golf | March 21, 2007 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Where is the accountability for all the dumb moves that have been made since JG was brought back? I know Snyder has signed off on all of them, but someone is advising him to. Snyder doesn't come up with the money offer to a player, junior does that. I can't wait for the big shakeup in the FO as was speculated a few threads ago.

Posted by: Throwback | March 21, 2007 9:10 AM | Report abuse

haha! No matter what I do, I never get fired! I love it. I might even bring back Dexter Manley for $15M a year. He certainly would sell lots of jerseys!

Posted by: Ceratto | March 21, 2007 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Some of you just gripe to gripe. The Skins worked out the best deal possible for someone who wasn't going to be with the team. Its true that we need a GM, but the answer for now is we don't. Gibbs puts his faith in the men that coach under him. Williams made a mistake about Arch, but I LOVE this FA season, versus years past. We have stability this year. EVERY team has a FA that "got away" ours happens to be Pierce. At the time they thought Marshall and Pierce were about the same player, and could save some money. Teams do it all the time.

As far as bashing the guy that started the blog, you guys are the same ones, that cheers for the team when they win and throw them under the bus when they lose. Real Skins fans, live and die with the Sklns week in and week out. The guy has a life and I am sure, his day to day duties sometimes come first over sitting with his laptop in his lap hitting refresh every minute on the NFL news wire. Keep up the great work.

Hail to 'em

Posted by: hail to 'em | March 21, 2007 9:13 AM | Report abuse

This is a great move. Arch wasn't going to get on the field here, the front office and coaching staff didn't trust him, and you have to think that the Reaper and other players were jealous of the money that he got. We got something for nothing in this trade and freed up cap space in 2008.

Oh by the way, Tom Brady was a 6th round pick.

Posted by: porter | March 21, 2007 9:14 AM | Report abuse

I don't know what to say...

Most of the time my team makes me sad.

Posted by: Skinz | March 21, 2007 9:15 AM | Report abuse

I'll be the one to abuse the horse this time.

This was a rare moment of insight for the Danny. The long term cap hit will be lessened by not keeping a guy around who didn't want to be here. We won't have to pay a psychiatrist to mend his ego so that he can play back-up to prileuax and we get a pick.

He was terrible in this defensive scheme and is probably past his prime.

I'd expect the bears to redo his contract in short order to minimize the risk for themselves. I also don't see the negative repercussions on the psyche of the team. They really did give him what he wanted and it sends a message that no talent hacks are not welcome in DC.

Posted by: evan | March 21, 2007 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Jason, sometimes you amaze with with your criticism of the Skins :-) Yes, they have had (and still do have) a lot of issues and concerns but trading Arch is something that universally is viewed as a good thing by all. He did not fit and I'm not sure how they would have used him next season. He was also very unhappy so this is great for him. Wish we had gotten something better than a 6th Round pick, though. And I do see Arch having a lights out season in Chicago and going to the Pro Bowl - because things like that tend to happen once players leave the Skins.

WooWoo, Ken Hamlin is going to Dallas :-(

Posted by: Lisa | March 21, 2007 9:23 AM | Report abuse

J La:
Love your work and I think for the most part you nailed it, but the 'Skins simmply ended a dysfunctional marriage. However it had to happen, whomever was at fault, it had to end. Yes, Archuleta seemed to handle things well in the face of his treatment, but the guy was distinctly lousy on the field. Besides, he didn't need to take The Danny's money - that was his choice. I agree he wasn't used properly, but who's to say he would have been better in another capacity? Sorry, I have no problem with cutting one's losses. Archuleta stunk, and one has to give a wide berth to believe he will re-emerge as some quality player in Chicago. Did the 'Skins make a monumental mistake in signing him in the first place? Of course. But time to move on.

And please, don't bring up Coles, because its impossible to defend him. He's still a headache up here in NY with the Jets. I know I follow all the Jets games and press and he still complains and cries and is a petulant child after every loss or perceived slight - and all this from at best a mediocre receiver who played on a 10-6 team this year. Good riddance. How anyone can believe we didn't end up with the upper hand on the Jets over that trade (save for the money involved in which we took a beating)is beyond me. As bad and dysfunctional as this front office is, that was the one single time that they emerged triumphant amidst all their other bunglings.

Posted by: CT Skinz | March 21, 2007 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Spot on Lisa!

Is that true about Hamlin?

Posted by: PDSquared | March 21, 2007 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Redskins being used again (unless its true, which I can't imagine it would be):

NFL super agent Drew Rosenhaus, appearing as a guest on "FSN's Best Damn Sports Show Period," on the next step for client, Bears OLB Lance Briggs: "Three options work well for us. A - the Bears can change their stance and work out a long-term contract. B - They can trade Lance to another team that would be willing to do another deal, and there are several. C - They could release him, take the franchise off and he'd be free to sign with another club. The Redskins have been interested, San Francisco's been interested, Seattle. At one point or another, all these teams have been interested in him."

Posted by: Rob | March 21, 2007 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Dammed if they did, dammed if they didn't.

I like the fact we are aggressive , I hate the fact we can't evaluate talent currently on our roster, on other teams rosters or college teams rosters.

that being said, I think i am observing some change in our operation, that we are moving in a direction of "team building" and not simply collecting stars to go on some barnstroming gig. I have a feeling we are establishing an Idenity, what kind of team we are. You have to know that to have any success,line in the sand may have been drawn.

The future and Gibbs II legacy is named Jason Campell

Posted by: Old School | March 21, 2007 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Gibbs knew Arch would be a distraction. Everyone (the media, fans, players, coaches) would put Arch under the microscope this season which would have made life miserable for Gibbs, the team, and Arch himself.
So, we avoid the drama this season, save a ton of cap space in 2008 and beyond, and gain a low round draft pick.
If you admit that Arch is not a good player (or at least not a good fit for the Skins) then I don't see how this could possibly be seen as a bad trade for the Skins.

Posted by: Diesel | March 21, 2007 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Arch Deluxe is the Skins prototypical scapegoat for their bad season. Every year they have to have at least one it's required. The Danny has to get mad at someone and get him fired at the end of the year. It's the Donald Trump way about him. Lloyd better watch out Snyder could be sending him a plasma in the near future.

Posted by: scapegoat | March 21, 2007 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Can we trade Dan Snyder for Peter Angelos? Oh wait...

Posted by: tampadave | March 21, 2007 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone have an news on Corey Simon? Is he going to get cut by Indy? Not sure what happened with him and Indy last year. Do you think he would be a good fit with the Redskins?

Posted by: Rob | March 21, 2007 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Pub Golf, good to see you up here again.

Arch Dee-luxe trade sounds pretty good to me, I just think ManBoob's ego is too big to try to mend things and use Arch to the best of his ability. I am glad we have freed up some money for Springs/Cooley. We MUST extend Cooley. He is the mack. And resident Redskin Headbanger.

Posted by: Pulldownclaw | March 21, 2007 9:48 AM | Report abuse

I like this move. for once the Skins are looking beyond this season by clearing up cap problems down the road. They no longer have an aging QB who must win now so they are willing to look beyond one season. Its sort of refreshing in a sense. If they can get Omar Stoutamire for depth, then its definatly a win.

Despite the fact that Archaleta handled things well last season, it was clear that he wanted to be gone. No one wants a player on their team that doesn't want to be there.

Posted by: Paul S | March 21, 2007 9:50 AM | Report abuse

The good news is that it is late March and we still have all of our draft picks for 2008.

Posted by: Steve F. | March 21, 2007 9:55 AM | Report abuse

My Turn....

JLaC - You criticism is to me is def a reach.

--Gibbs is the GM - Blame Gibbs 2.3 (And GG for advocating to sign him) not Snyder. Snyder just offered the $$ to make sure he wouldn't sign anywhere.

--Archibingus is a Snitch. He is Deepcover (I was one of the 1st to make this claim but the RI bloggers doubted it). Everyone knows if you speak out against the team to the Papers, you a## is gonna get cut. Arch and his agent knew they would stirr comotion and force Gibbs' hand in this.

--Lavernous Coles - We took a $9 Mil cap hit and went to the playoffs the VERY NEXT YEAR. Coles took his beef to the media and Gibbs wasn't having it. This time around he smartened up and got someone else to take the cap hit. This why we get the low ounder vs. a higher pick.

--Re: Management. If the players disliked Management, then why did Smooooot come back?!?!?

--Gardner, Rod asked to be traded if my memory serves me right. Plus, he sucked point blank.

--Patrick Ramsey was beyond repair.

--We can argue trades as well. What has Ramsey or Gardner done since they left Washington? Nothing and both have played for multiple teams. We are doing much better with Santana and JC is a top up and coming young QB. So where (in trades) are we losing again?

--LAvar - His agents messed it up, not Snyder. Once someone messes up the $$, relationships become beyond repair.

--Snyder - If it was about the money JLaC - Snyder would have paid him and deactivated him for the next 4 years. But, sadly where in an era that has a Salary CAP on each team and they are (hopefully) realizing they need to protect their future cap years since the future years are already high.

How are we perpetual losers but are only one season removed from from the playoffs. We wnt as far as Bmore did this year, but you don't refer to them as perpetual losers, so your axe you are grinding concerns me. I appreciatte your reporting/blogging, but I am just stating the obvious. This may be your blog, but you dealing with core 'skins fans here who will swat your stuff when you throw up that week sh*t. No team is perfect, but we are not a perpetual loser of a team.

Posted by: 4th Floor | March 21, 2007 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Good move by the Skins. Sometimes you have to cut your losses.

Posted by: Joe in Raleigh | March 21, 2007 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Rob - 2 points on your posts. Believe nothing that agents say, especially Rosenhaus. He's trying to drum up interst and money for his client as fas as Briggs. Everybody says the Redskins are interested in every player because it is believable how they have conducted business over the last couple years.

Corey Simon had some mysterious injury last year. The Colts did not believe him and it sounds like his playing days are over. He was in it to get 1 last payday which he got from them.

It's hard to not badmouth every move th Skins make base don recent history but this offseason their moves seem to make a lot of sense. Only time will tell how it plays out on the field.

Posted by: cdubb | March 21, 2007 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Correction - Just thought of the Duckett deal. We are 50-50 in trades.....

Posted by: 4th | March 21, 2007 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Just how lame was this trade? consider chicago picks 31st and after compensatory picks are handed out, it will be like picking in the 10th rd of the old 12rd draft!Really Lame

Posted by: Lame trade? | March 21, 2007 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Everyone keeps saying "We are moving in the right direction"....maybe, but one offseason does not sell me.

Doesn't everyone remember when we picked up the Jets player purge, after the old stars debacle, we said 'see, we are learning, younger guys not older guys'....Fast Forward to today...4 years later and we ARE STILL SAYING THE SAME THING!

How long does it take the team to learn and lesson?

Posted by: PDSquared | March 21, 2007 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Great move by the Skins. They got something for nothing. They would have cut him today and the Chicago Bores would have got him for nothing. It's not like every team in the league was bidding for his services.

Jason, I don't think you mentioned what would have happened if they'd paid him the $5 million bonus today. Then, if they wanted to cut him next year, the hit would have been $8 mill. That's a pretty big risk and a very high price for a man who the Skins (rightly or wrongly) only use on special teams.

Posted by: KK | March 21, 2007 10:06 AM | Report abuse

The Redskins taking a larger cap hit for trading Arch ($4.0 million from $2.4 million) for the 2007 season may seem perplexing, but what other moves were the Redskins going to make this offseason? They may sign role players to add depth, but all other big-name free agents are gone or do not meet the Redskins' needs. The team signed the free agents whom it targeted. If Arch's contract is off the books after this season, great. However, the Redskins must not get cute again and start to believe (again) that spending money wins championships. Remember the 2000 season experiment? That worked out really great, did it not? The team (or Danny-boy, I should say) has leveraged its future by throwing away draft picks. Build the team and add more depth through the draft. Signing big name free agents is much more costly than signing drafted players. However, the draft is pointless until the team hires a competent general manager.

Posted by: Richie | March 21, 2007 10:06 AM | Report abuse

The Skins had no leverage in trading Archuletta. When other teams know you're going to cut or bench a player, you lose all of your leverage. Archuletta is worth more than a 6th rounder, but the context of the deal means you can't get good value.

Don't be pissed at the team for only getting a 6th rounder. Be pissed at the team for signing him in the first place.

(btw- i know we all agree it was a horrible move)

Posted by: Clinton Hill | March 21, 2007 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Ryan Clark for a 7th rounder!? Why on earth would the Steelers do that? Doesn't Clark start for them? Teams don't trade starters for 7th rounders. They trade players like Arch who are about to be cut.

Posted by: Clinton Hill | March 21, 2007 10:09 AM | Report abuse

PDS.. i'm with u bro.. don't know what u mean by old players ? i'm not for bringing in any old players.. this is a fast, strong, young mans game.. which is why u have to rely on the draft..
GM meaning a General Manager.. and a good one, not a yes man..
but why do all of us know what needs doing in building w/draft and not over paying, etc for FA's and the skins FO can't ? how many blunders and embarrassments do they need going thru before the light bulb goes on ? and we're not even getting paid for it ? i honestly could make better decisions in the skins FO than they have !

Posted by: vpar | March 21, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

I'm sure we were interested in Briggs at one point: at the beginning of free agency.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

We have a little cap space this year, thus taking the cap hit from Archy in order to save money in future seasons is wortwhile. As mentioned by others, the deal gives us more flexibility in future seasons. A 6th round pick isn't much, but he was benched last year. I agree that the deal should be a conditional pick based on # of starts or games played so we can get up to a 4th rounder.

As for Ryan Clark, I know we are just rambling in here, but as far as I know, he is still a starter in Pittsburgh, and worth far more than a 7th rounder. Yes, he is worth more than Archy. Pitt should have no intention of trading Clark, and his value would be more like a 4th rounder.

Posted by: Jon | March 21, 2007 10:13 AM | Report abuse

PDSquared, I hear Ken Hamlin visited Dallas yesterday....I believe they signed him.

Posted by: Lisa | March 21, 2007 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Clinton Hill makes a good point. The trade was the best of a bad situation. Be pissed that we were in the situation in the first place, not how we got out of it.

As fas as bLloyd goes, that dude can carry Arch's bags to Chicago and stay there. The fact of the matter is that someone wanted Arch, and no one wants bLloyd. We have to keep him.

Even if we could have gotten the same trade deal for bLloyd from another team, we would have been absorbing two 4mil hits in one year. We had to keep one of them, and I would bet a testi... er... arm that Arch was the only one that was going to get us (a) cap relief vs. straight up cutting him, and (b) something in return.

Posted by: Bucktown Skins Fan | March 21, 2007 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Come on Jason?
This was a great trade, we get a player who plays in one package, off our books in future years. He didn't fit with our players, scheme wise. Chicago picked up his option, i'm sure we could have got a 4th rounder if we picked the option. GREAT move considering the predictiment we were in.

Posted by: Ryan | March 21, 2007 10:17 AM | Report abuse


Old player was the reference to the 2000 FA of Smith, Sanders, etc..

Posted by: PDSquared | March 21, 2007 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Schefter is reporting that Hamlin is in Dallas today, steppin' on the Cowpies.

Posted by: cload and daggar | March 21, 2007 10:23 AM | Report abuse

I think you are reading more into this than need be. The Redskins whiffed big-time in acquiring Archuletta in 2006 and obvioulsy decided he could not play in their system for some reason. The advantages this trade has over keeping him (and not playing him) or cutting him are:

1) a draft pick
2) cap relief (in the future -- not this year)

We don't "win" these trades with Archuletta, Gardner, and Ramsey because the players are not particulalry good and teams know it.

We got what we could and we move on. The mistake was not the trade. The mistake was signing Archuletta to the contract in the first place if they were going to play cover-2 with Archuletta in a major cover role.

Posted by: Mark | March 21, 2007 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Don't let PG fool you guys... he is/was the pool boy at the "Schmidt's Gay" pool, not Arch's pool.

Re: the Arch deal... I'm with a lot of you guys/ladies. Happy that he'll be off the books by next year, but furious that we ever made the move in the first place.

I hope this offseason is a step in the right direction, but it's impossible to say that until we see what happens with Springs, the draft, etc.

Posted by: Ricky Bobby | March 21, 2007 10:27 AM | Report abuse

The Jets have been good to us. Overall, we ended up with Moss and Thomas. Anyone care to argue that those aren't two of the best players on offense?

Last year with ARE, Lloyd, Carter and Archuleta, we were essentially doing the same thing we had done with the Jets, which is to find younger-ish players with NFL experience who have the potential to make an impact on day 1 in a Redskins' uniform.

Lloyd might have been a mistake, but I could argue that the rest were not. Archuleta was forced to do things out of position due to other injuries in the secondary. I think ARE and Carter are going to be stars next year with a better supporting cast. ARE has already shown flashes and I'm even thinking that Lloyd could be a better contributor with a little work. As far as money goes, as funny as it sounds, it's almost irrellevent. Players are going to get overpaid because that is the nature of the market. Sure, you can go ahead and spin the draft wheel and get someone who has a small chance of being a contributer that grows smaller in the later rounds, or you can fork over a huge signing bonus and some gauranteed money to a proven player.

As long as the Skins can make the cap situation work--which they pretty much have--this approach is sustainable. I would argue that our problem isn't the spend big approach the front office takes, it's the way we give away our draft picks. We've drafted ok compared to other NFL teams, I think it's just that our chances of getting some quality depth out of the draft get really small when we have so many fewer picks than other teams. Arch, Lloyd, Carter and ARE, weren't the big mistakes. It was the Duckett trade.

Posted by: nyskinsfan | March 21, 2007 10:28 AM | Report abuse

What's everyone's view on us trying to get Calvin Johnson? I've heard a few very light/small scattered rumors.

I really like him, and think giving up a couple picks from next year is wortwhile, he is a sure thing.

My ony problem is we need help on DL, and by taking Johnson, we are moving out of our spot for a prime DL. For this reason, I just don't see it happening, he will cost too much in future picks even if he slips to #4.

Posted by: Jon | March 21, 2007 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Alright, time to kick the pail. My viewpoint is pretty much in line with many of you folks. It had to happen, and better to have it happen now, rather than down the road and many more dollars later.

Yes, the price is as ugly as I thought it would be when I heard the trade went down. Unfortunately, when you ante up to make someone the highest paid safety in football, backing out is going to cost you. Not to use the analogy to demean Archuleta (as far as any demoted player goes, he's at least taken it reasonably well - publically), but it's a case of losing the gangrenous arm to save the body. Keeping Adam wasn't going to be any better, and it was going to get more costly. Yes, it was expensive, and it's still expensive, but at least we now get to say 'FIDO' - 'F It, Drive On'.

And as to the FO, that's been spilt milk for about the entire existence of this blog. Lambasting the FO at this point is paramount to splashing around in the puddle. I don't disagree with all of you - the FO's has punctuated a regular incompetence with flashes of dismaying choices. We've just beat the topic to death.

Posted by: FlimFlam | March 21, 2007 10:32 AM | Report abuse

We have to start resisting those temptations to make the big splash. We need DL, not WR. We have a log jam at that position as it is.

But Snyder has an itchy trigger finger

Posted by: PDSquared | March 21, 2007 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Further, the Arch trade with Chicago was necessary. Arch was worse for us talking behind the coaching staff's back than he would be mouthing off in the locker room. Gregg Williams may have made some mistakes, and he might be arrogant, but what Arch did severely damaged his credibility. For all the players knew, it was Shawn Springs talking to the press. We're not going to have a good defense if the players don't trust GW.

Posted by: nyskinsfan | March 21, 2007 10:34 AM | Report abuse

nyskinsfan, the problem with the Spend Big philosophy is that you are screwed if things don't work out with the FA.

Jon, we need too much to do that. The best thing the Skins can do is trade down to get some DL/LB/CB/S help. CJ will probably be an amazing player, but one position will not help us that much. We need multiple positions too much to go after him, and we can't afford another high priced skill position. We have enough of those that we can't get rid of... cough cough bLloyd cough cough

And -- most importantly -- we need to put our foot down somewhere and say "Stop mortgaging the future! Keep our draft picks!"

Posted by: Bucktown Skins Fan | March 21, 2007 10:36 AM | Report abuse

I may be the only who thinks this...but I believe B. Lloyd is a talented receiever and should not be traded. Look at the 2005 season, Brunell threw mostly to Santana, hence the Pro Bowl. Then, in the first half of 2006, Brunell had to keep Santana happy, mix in the threat of Randle El and Cooley, which left Lloyd with minimal "go to" plays. Then, Campbell comes in and the coaches limit the playbook each week. Lloyd is best when the plays open up and he can get downfield (yes he did drop at least one perfectly thrown ball) but the coaches were limiting these types of plays early on for Campbell. With Brunell looking first for Moos, a limited playbook for Campbell, not to mention having Santana Moss, Chris Cooley, Clinton Portis, Ladell Betts, and Randle wonder Lloyd had such shi**y numbers. My point is, if you don't think Lloyd is needed on this team then that's fine if you want him traded. But don't say he stinks because he doesn't stink; he just has a boat load of talent around him and a young QB in a complex system.

Posted by: CC | March 21, 2007 10:39 AM | Report abuse


And that is most likely the reason he was kept. Arch couldnt play in that system, no one was holding him dack etc... like J Campbell may have been holding back Llyoyd.

I guarantee you the FO thinks that way since they cannot admit mistakes and will look for any excuse..

Posted by: PDSquared | March 21, 2007 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Bucktown, How are we screwed? Because Danny has to pay more money? Cap hit? I don't care about those things. It's dissapointing when the players underperform, but at least they played. Would a rookie WR or DE done any better than Lloyd or Carter did? I think they'll be better next year. My point is, who cares if Danny is spending so much money?

Posted by: nyskinsfan | March 21, 2007 10:44 AM | Report abuse

this move makes sense. cut our losses now, and move on. why would we keep a guy that makes exhorbitant money but doesn't fit AT ALL into our system? he was a total liability on the field, despite being one of the best players on it.

certainly, signing him in the first place was a mistake, but finding a way out of his contract is a small victory.

Posted by: pezpunk | March 21, 2007 10:46 AM | Report abuse

lloyd may not stink but he has done nothing in this league yet to prove he is a good WR. He has made some highlight reel catches but has never had more than about 50 recs or 800 yards. He can't get worse than last year so hopefully he will play better and somehwat justify that bad decision.

While we are on the Archuleta topic, who is going to be our starting SS? Double G touts Prioleau as this great player but he really has not done anything in the league either. His stats below. I'm thinking its gonna be a rotation with him, Fox and Stoutmire. Hope this does not hinder Taylor again.

Year Team Tk Ast Sck Stf FF FR PD Int Yds TD
1999 SF 32 8 0 0 1 0 10 0 0 0
2000 SF 36 10 0 1 2 0 3 1 13 0
2001 BUF 23 8 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
2002 BUF 64 22 1 2 0 0 4 0 0 0
2003 BUF 21 12 0.5 0 1 0 5 0 0 0
2004 BUF 15 7 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
2005 WAS 28 4 3 0 1 2 4 0 0 0
Totals: 219 71 5.5 3 6 3 28 1 13 0

Posted by: cdubb | March 21, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

I think Lloyd's grade with us is incomplete. Brunell couldn't throw downfield, so couldn't utilize Lloyd. Assuming Gibbs lets Campbell throw it more than 10 yards downfield, then we can truly evaluate Lloyd. It's not like he dropped passes, was a headcase, or wasn't getting open....

I do recall Saunders saying Lloyd is the most talented receiver from his wrist to fingertips he has ever seen......

Unlike Archuleta who had his chance, I say give Lloyd 1 more year before passing definitive judgement..

Posted by: Jon | March 21, 2007 11:02 AM | Report abuse

nysf -- the way the skins structured Archi/BLloyd/ARE/Jansen/Thomas/you name it because they all seem to have the same contract/ -- front-loaded with guaranteed money, you are screwed because if you want to get out of a bad situation, you can't. We pulled this one out of the fire with Archi, but a lot of things had to fall in place to make it work; you're exactly right that I don't care how much the mistakes cost Synder in $$, but cap management is everything in the NFL today.
Don't forget that we have to sign our #6 pick -- I haven't seen an updated cap number yet, but it's probably less than $4M. That's enough for one top-ten player, but I'm not sure they can afford to do the "trade for a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd" option at this point. Of course, I'm a little confused -- if the FO is hopelessly clueless, why do we want to give them more draft picks?

Posted by: cload and daggar | March 21, 2007 11:02 AM | Report abuse

"Bucktown, How are we screwed? Because Danny has to pay more money? Cap hit? I don't care about those things. It's dissapointing when the players underperform, but at least they played. Would a rookie WR or DE done any better than Lloyd or Carter did? I think they'll be better next year. My point is, who cares if Danny is spending so much money?"

nyskinsfan, your original email said, "as long as the Skins can make the cap situation work--which they pretty much have--this approach is sustainable." The problem with consistently spending big is that there will always be FA flops. If you keep blowing your load (sorry for the crude expression) on 3 or 4 FAs a year, you will cease to be able to make the cap situation work. It's playing with fire, and eventually we will get burned. Not every player will give back money to get away, or have some ex-coach desiring his services.

And a rookie who flops is not nearly as bad as a FA who flops because they cost less. This offseason was great. They went after one high priced FA (not even that high priced) in LFB, and a mid to high level FA in Smoot. And that's it... we didn't break the bank on them, and we limited it to two FAs. This is what we need to do, in addition to drafting.

Don't build a team through FA, especially not high priced ones. Fill a hole or two with free agency and/or trading, but DO NOT do it at the expense of draft picks.

Posted by: Bucktown Skins Fan | March 21, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

I like the trade, but since it's only Danny's money would have preferred he coughed up the 5 million and gotten a 4th rounder this year.

Posted by: Mad Dog | March 21, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

All in all, everybody wins. Archuleta goes to Chicago where he'll be happier and play as a hybrid-linebacker never having to cover anybody, and we are spared having to watch him start 30 yards off the line of scrimmage and still immediately turn around at the snap of the ball and run downfield as a receiver blows past him. (Instead we'll have the pleasure of watching Carlos Rogers doing that)
If the Bears want a safety that is slow, overrated, turning 30, and can't cover anybody then more power to them. This is football, not making work-out videos. Personally I'll take Omar Stoudemire back any day over Archuleta, even at 33 years old.
Funny, I thought all the 'Skins bashing of picking up Archuleta in the first place (rightfully so) was directed at how bad their scouting and front-office are...and then when they cut their loss its a mistake that somehow makes them worse? I like that logic.

Posted by: CT Skinz | March 21, 2007 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Cload, I see what you are saying, but I have not once seen us in a position where the salary cap kept us from signing a player we wanted to sign. I don't know how, because I don't understand exactly how it works, but we've magically been able to work within the cap since its inception. Danny pays tons of money, but the contracts seem to be structured in a way that works. I've seen other teams in situations where they've had to purge their roster severely. Hasn't happened to us.

So, maybe the cap prevented us from signing Nate Clements.

Posted by: nyskinsfan | March 21, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

"It's not like he dropped passes, was a headcase, or wasn't getting open...."

Jon, to the contrary, Brandon Lloyd dropped at least 2 guaranteed TDs from Jason Campbell. bLloyd had to apologize to his team multiple times for being an @ss on the sidelines and for seemingly not caring after losses. He was even called out by cPort in an interview.

I'm pretty sure he was getting open at times though...

Posted by: Bucktown Skins Fan | March 21, 2007 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Bucktown, I agree about not trading away draft picks, but see above re: cap management. We're ok and we always have been.

I certainly don't want us to overpay for bad players. But, I wouldn't mind if we pay a lot for good players. Yes, I'm all for drafting and filling holes with modestly priced FAs, but again, I don't care if Danny overpays.

The Bills overpaid for Dockery and the niners overpaid for Clements. They spent the money they needed to spend to fill a need. The cap era is forcing teams to pay high prices when talent is scarce for a particular position. It's the nature of the system. If we can beat the system, great. If not, again...spend Danny spend.

Posted by: nyskinsfan | March 21, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse


you and i think a like

I have posted before that its not the strategy or the money, its the execution (evaluation).

It's mostly about getting the right QB, if thats wrong its all about changing the deck chairs on the titanic.

Posted by: Old School | March 21, 2007 11:20 AM | Report abuse

After last year's nonsense, there was no way AA was ever gonna play here in any meaningful way. Once Grilliams decides he doesn't like a player, seems he doesn't like that player forever. That said, and please correct me if I'm wrong on the numbers, it seems Redskins had two basic choices to make here:

1. Cut AA outright this year or next year and have the $10 million in guaranteed money that originally was pro-rated over five years go against the cap in two.

2. Trade him somehow.

That they managed to do the latter is, frankly, amazing to me. That Chicago apparently agreed to put half that $10 million hit on their books is, frankly, amazing to me. That they also gave us a draft pick is, frankly, amazing to me.

For those of you who say that a fourth round pick would've been better, of course it would have. A first-rounder and Brian Urlacher would've been even better than that. We could play that game forever. All things considered, this is probably the best way this could've realistically been resolved.

If only we could've worked the same kind of trade with Brandon Lloyd...

Posted by: Epstein'sMother'sDoctor | March 21, 2007 11:22 AM | Report abuse

nyskinsfan, that is true, but we have been good about renegotiating our "core Skins" contracts in order to consistently make room. The problem with this approach is that (a) it depends on the willingness of your players, and (b) we will have a bunch of 42 year old players still under contract because the money is just spread over more years.

In some ways I appreciate the smaller cap room because it limits theDanny's options, but that is a sad state of affairs when I am rooting for my team to be "handcuffed" so that the FO doesn't do something monumentally stupid...

Posted by: Bucktown Skins Fan | March 21, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

the price they have to pay for bad decisions. no need to keep him cause he only counted as $2.4M, when in reality he was costing $5M-plus actually. they needed o let him go and they need to learn how to scout for their scheme and not just read stats pages and mke decisions.

Posted by: RobGreg | March 21, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

-Ochos, when I read that about the skins taking LaRon Landry, my eyes became misty. I went upstairs and got out the old Nintendo and played Super Mario Brothers. I beat it twice through before I got bored. I also stopped in level 3-1 to get the unlimited 1-ups. Why? Because I was reminded of the happiness of my youth. I had my own 35 point 2nd quarter in my heart.

-JLC, listen man, I feel you on all the stuff with the front office. I do. it's bad. I'm not going to sit here and tell you the mess in your hand is fertilizer when it's just plain dookie. Here is the thing: Bringing Archuletta here was a mistake. Period. He never should have been here. We cannot be afraid to act because we made a mistake. You make salient points in your defense of him but let me throw these things out there:

-Just because a guy doesn't say anything to the media or the press doesn't see a millionare sulking, doesn't mean he isn't a cancer. You don't have to be T.O. People may not have anything bad to say about him, but you can still have a negative affect. Take the 'surgery on his own' thing as an example. Everyone else goes through the team like they are supposed to. He does his own thing. He does his own thing with workouts, his website etc. So, when a guy does his own thing and doesn't produce, it hurts team morale. There's your cancer

-This also sends a pretty strong message going forward. This was a country club atmosphere for years. If you don't want to be here, leave. This is no free ride anymore. This isn't the Bruce Smith retirement tour. If you don't buy in, we'll get rid of you. No problem. Thanks for being here, no go. There are too many guys who play their butts off and play great for us to abide another year of that 'experiment'. If he does well somewhere else, good for him. It just proves that much more to me that he didn't belong here in the 1st place.

-We realize that he isn't a good fit. How does that help anybody to keep him here? I'd eat that couple million in cap space every day of the week and twice on Sundays to make sure I've only got guys who are on the same page as me. We realize that we made a mistake and to get even the slightest amount in return for correcting that mistake is an absolute win in my mind.

Sorry for the long post.

Posted by: ArtMonkToTheSticks | March 21, 2007 11:28 AM | Report abuse

I will add to previous. Keep picks don't, be desparate. There are lots of dumb teams in the league who will cut players in july and august that may help. wait it out let the game come to you.

Posted by: Old School | March 21, 2007 11:28 AM | Report abuse

too bad we can't trade w/patriots for asante samuel.. seems he's not a happy camper and is there for the takin.. here's the deal: switch 1st rounders w/the patroits, give them springs (if he'd redo his contract w/them) and our #2 or #3 next year.. patriots get our # 6, springs and our # 2 or 3 next year.. we'd get their # 28 (to take a d-lineman with), and have asante' as well.. works for me ! but we probably couldn't afford it..

Posted by: vpar | March 21, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Another fine example of an organization without a true leader. Gibbs is not a GM and he never will be. Vinny is a trophy executive for Danny boy and adds absolutely no value to the organization.

Posted by: silly goose | March 21, 2007 11:31 AM | Report abuse

cdubb - You're right Lloyd hasn't had outstanding numbers but in 2005 with SF, he had Alex Smith, Rattay, and Dorsey throwing to him minus Norv Turner. Then he comes here to a 36 year old arm to begin the season. We can't write him off yet.

Posted by: CC | March 21, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Good bye Arch Deluxe.

I keep hearing this term "hybrid player". What exactly is he a hybrid of, a DB who can't over and a LB who can't tackle?

Yes, he was a class act in the way he handled his demotion and the guys in the locker room liked him...but he STUNK.

Was he deep cover? I don't care...he STUNK.

I'm glad we're taking the cap hit this year and getting yahoo off the team. No one wants to remember that he was slipping in St Louis before we overpaid him and he could never cover anyone in the first place. Did I mention he STUNK?

Also, no one has ever questioned Blloyd's talent. The knock is his horrible attitude. I agree, we can give him another chance this year, but this year only...if he doesn't produce, he should be gone.

On a draft note, I am not a proponet of trading up for Calvin Johnson, but if somehow he slipps to #6 I don't think you could pass him up.

Posted by: etrod | March 21, 2007 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: PDSquared | March 21, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

People soon forget the Trade skins made with New Orleans so they could draft Ricky Williams and with all those picks and ours we still suck?

Posted by: Draftcurse | March 21, 2007 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Arch Deluxe was a great guy....for me to poop on!

Posted by: Booger McFarlen | March 21, 2007 11:42 AM | Report abuse

etrod,Hes not the only one who STUNK but your not calling for anybody elses departure?

Posted by: whatsuppppppppp | March 21, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

I try to avoid calling for player's departure, but once they are departed I will rejoice, just as I am now.

Posted by: etrod | March 21, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

how about shutting uppppppppppppppp?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 11:54 AM | Report abuse

No no no vpar. Do not trade away future draft picks. That is how we get in these problems trying to fix things in free agency and have no depth. Samuel is probably unhappy cause he wants to get paid a hefty bonus the same way Briggs does.

CC - I hear you on BLloyd. I haven't written him off yet and will go into next year with the same optimism that I have every year. Hopefully that won't be trashed by midseason like 2006.

Posted by: cdubb | March 21, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Far too much is being made of the first round picks being shipped off for sixth rounders. Both Ramsey and Gardner were found wanting by other organizations besides the Skins...I'd be surprised if Ramsey doesn't end up as the third QB in Denver. And is Gardner even on someone's roster now? He was Marty's handpicked selection...not the current regime.

Jason, I love reading your stuff...but frankly, that's a senseless point.

As for Arch Deluxe, I think he was hurt by Prioleau's injury which forced him into a role where he couldn't produce results. And even with the depth at safety presumably better heading into camp this year, too many bridges were burned to make things work.

Sounds like the right moves were made to me.

Posted by: Dave | March 21, 2007 11:56 AM | Report abuse

it's March 21 . . . I don't caaaaaare. wake me up in August and introduce me to the new guys.

I hate how "fantasy" sports has made every yahoo a professional GM.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Read Boswell's column yesterday about Peter Angelos. Substitute Daniel Snyder each time you see Peter Angelos and we'll all have an easier time understanding why the Skin's probably will never be successful under Snyder. Only qualification would be that Snyder gets a sudden epiphany, creates a good FO, and leaves well enough alone.

Posted by: Tide | March 21, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Im a life long Skins fan but have long since realized that when Little Danny took over the team, things were going to change for the worse.

Danny: Hands off. Let the guys who know what they are doing run the team.

The Fans

Posted by: Skins Fan Down South | March 21, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Just another example of why the Ravens know how to keep a franchise viable and the skins don't..........they screw up a free agent signing at a position of need, a position which was created because they let a serviceable player (Clark) leave, and they can't fix the problem through the draft cause they have no choices!!! The Ravens have had to make similar choices, let starters go, but keep the team a contender because they have a GM smart enough to realize he needs to build his team through the draft.....cheaper contracts, homegrown replacements for when older veterans price themselves out of town, etc, etc..........until your boy Danny figures this out, the skins will keep turning over their roster year in and year out, be a couple million bucks under or over the cap, and never develop any chemistry or long term stability..........good luck skins fans, and GO RAVENS!!

Posted by: ravens fan | March 21, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

The trade makes sense in that I'm surprised that the skins were able to get anything for him after decreasing his trade value so much last year. The ultimate indictment of this whole AA viasco will be if he goes and plays well for the Bears. If they're able to utilize him effectively Double G will have to shoulder the lions' share of the blame for this mess for placing ego before adaptation. AA was not the sole reason the skins defense stunk last year. They were riddled with injuries. The Bears will have much better players to surround him with but who's to say the skins defense wouldn't be better next year with a healthy Springs, Griffin, a new stud rookie DE/DT, Taylor, Rocky starting (jury's out I know), Smoot, and LFB to surround AA with.

Posted by: skinswest | March 21, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse


Im looking at this all wrong- Hey Danny! How's about you sign me for 1 year for a measley $3M, I'll suck and then you can ship me off or cut me, I keep the money, pay off the house and live comfortably???

Sounds like a deal to me!

Posted by: Skins Rule | March 21, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Oh nos!

Who's going to be our personal punt protector next year?!

Posted by: Raub | March 21, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

The news here for me was about Archuleta having a bone spur removed this offseason. My dad has a bone spur and, when it acts up, he has to wear high top boots to immoblize it. Really painful. That could explain tons about Archuleta's short comings in pass coverage (and even missed tackles on special teams). I'm with AMTTS -- the real shabingus was bringing him in period. The Skins medical staff whiffed on that, just like they did missing Springs' sports hernia at the end of 2005. I'm sure they're all 'experts' (and probably overpaid specialists), but seems like, with that kind of investment, you want someone who can do a regular phreakin' physical.

Something looks not good when Grilliams admits that his D needs fixing to fill the center of the field on middle field passes, and Chicago, which already has the #1 defense in the league, matches its saliva with $5M guaranteed. I smell fantasy football playing by the owner, as in the coaches would have been locked out of the discussions (other than St. Joe).

I don't think St. Joe was lying when he said he thought Archuleta would be back. I think it quite possible that it took a full day for $nyder to convince the Bears to guarantee $5M, esp. with Briggs' balking.

Posted by: dcsween | March 21, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

skinswest, though its generally fair to take a dump on Grilliams, I don't think he gets the whole lion's share if AA can't run/loses his agility b/c he's injured (and the docs missed it).

Posted by: dcsween | March 21, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

"Danny: Hands off. Let the guys who know what they are doing run the team."

Skins Fan Down South, amen... but one caveat: hire someone who knows how to run the team first.

Posted by: Bucktown Skins Fan | March 21, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

According to the Bears website, the deal is void if Archuleta doesn't pass a physical on Thursday.

Posted by: dcsween | March 21, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget the infamous ESPN article last year which blasted the 'skins defensive staff along with others. I think it's a very safe bet that the "source" was Arch. Hence, do you want that fellow around as you try to build unity? A hidden cancer is still a cancer!

Posted by: T-Man | March 21, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Pasquarelli is going to rip into the Skins like raw meat on this Archuleta thing ... and he's going to be right.

Posted by: dcsween | March 21, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

JLC -- thanks for doing your part to keep the front office honest.

I think the Skins need Jack Welsh in the front office. As he says, if you hired someone, you did it for a reason. If they fail, it's your fault for either not knowing how to hire or, more likely, for putting the employee in a position where they can't use those skills you know they have in a manner that lets you and them succeed.

No reason to cut bait on Archeleta yet. There's a reason he was hired; put him in a position where he can succeed -- this side of Chicago.

Otherwise, your only explanation is that the people in personnel have no clue what they're doing. No wonder the Vinny rumors continue.

Posted by: worstSeat | March 21, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

he was awful period. you either cut the cancer out or it kills you. great move getting rid of him, horrible move getting him in the first place. let's move on.

Posted by: tugboat | March 21, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Where does this cancer BS come from? The guy accepted his lot with dignity. Players actually confirmed what the Friend article was saying. He was not cancer. The more accurate read is what worstSeat said, bad hire or not in a position to succeed (likely both). I also agree with what Renaldo Wynn said in the preseason, its never as good as it looks and its never as bad as it looks.

Posted by: dcsween | March 21, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

It seems to me that there is little merit or relevance in tabbing someone "a former 1st rounder" as JLC did. Especially since we didnt even draft him. Archuleta's draft status from 1998(?) is hardly important to us in 2007. As far as I'm concerned, there are two ways to look at this deal that are not mutually exclusive at all: 1) Look at it in isolation. We had an aging, injury prone safety who was probably not going to start. He was signed to a gigantic contract. For a minimal cap hit this season--a season where we were basically done spending--we were able to unload his entire contract going forward and actually got SOMETHING back for him. 2) Look at it in the bigger picture. We signed this guy to the gigantic contract under the foolish belief that his obviously declining skills would magically reapear when put into Williams' system. It was a terrible decision combining poor evaluation and a throwback to the Year 2000 mentality of collecting players with big names like they are trading cards. Now, a year later, we had to push the ejection seat button and bail out of this disasterous move, getting little in return for the huge up-front investment and the spurning of a good system guy like Ryan Clark.

If we want to grade the front office's competence, we definitely need to take into account the big picture. But as far as bashing or praising this move (as was the subject of JLC's blog post), I think we need to look at it for it, and not taint it with what are basically pointless and irrelevant references to totally different trades of totally different players in totally different situations from years gone by who happen to share the fact that they were former 1st rounders in common with Arch Deluxe. Given the situation on March 20th, 2007, I like the move we made. Can I say with any certainty we won't make a similar mistake next year with the money we've freed up? Nope. But that's a different issue. This particular deal makes good sense.

Posted by: JGP | March 21, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

As for Arch Deluxe, I think he was hurt by Prioleau's injury which forced him into a role where he couldn't produce results. And even with the depth at safety presumably better heading into camp this year, too many bridges were burned to make things work.

Sounds like the right moves were made to me.

Posted by: Dave | March 21, 2007 11:56 AM

did you see the preseason???? he sucked before prioleau's injury!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

The acceleration of last years bonus money onto this years cap I get but the Bears are going to pay the guy $5M instead of the Skins. Doesn't that come off this years cap? If not, where and when do the skins get to take credit for it? Or if it has already been factored in, How?

Posted by: mi-ti-bear | March 21, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

The $5M was an option bonus (I believe) and the Skins didn't end up paying it. The current year cap hit is the acceleration of the signing bonus, which would have been spread out over several years.

Posted by: dcsween | March 21, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

DC - I hear you. If he was injured and no one else knew than Double G can be let off the hook a little. Don't know why he'd keep quiet about the injury after the benching if it was really hampering him though.

Posted by: skinswest | March 21, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Cancer is right. Arch is said to have contributed to an article that was extremely critical of his coaching staff. Which is much more damaging than mouthing off in the locker room.

Also, Friend was fairly liberal with some of the things he inferred from mainly having conversations with ONE anonymous source. Williams has rubbed people the wrong way and certainly has enemies, but he also has friends and former players who can attest to his defensive mastery.

What Arch did was worse than taking off his helmet and yelling at his coach on the sidelines. At least in that situation the coaches know who they have a problem with. The whole idea of going out and sourcing a story that discredits the organization for which you play is about as bad a thing you can do to your team. Especially when it's skin-hating espn.

Posted by: nyskinsfan | March 21, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse


Just very curioius.. with your nicknames for and criticism of the head three (Sn/Gib/VC) how are you personally treated by them??? IS there tension when you are around you know if they read your they comment to you about it?

Posted by: Herb | March 21, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Once you Crybabys finish debating Arch staying or leaving can I suggest we talk about who will replace him? Anyone who says Prioleau,or Stoutmire is forever band from blog for to much kool-aide drinking??

Posted by: startdebate | March 21, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

dcsween thanks. Doesn't that mean the Skins are $5M ahead somewhere? If the $5M was a bonus, I assume part of it would have counted towards this year's cap along with whatever was there from last years bonus. Bonus wise, if we kept the guy, the cap hit would have gone up this year anyway. The better scenario would be if the $5M were considered all 2007 salary, then the Skins would have have net improvement 2007 cap wise.

Posted by: mi-ti-bear | March 21, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I feel as though JLC and other fans are not giving the Skins the chance to make up for all of its past mistakes.

They have showed that the may be turning the corner yet most post and articles kill them somehow. Maybe I am being a bit homerish, but I want to see whether they have learned from the past. Maybe they have not made moves in free agency because they did not have money to throw around, but can we atleast think that maybe they are turning the corner.

I guess I will just say that I will keep my fingers crossed that nothing stupid happens like the team trading away the whole draft for Calvin Johnson. But I will be keeping a positive mindset that maybe they have learned from past mistakes.


Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

startdebate, Prioleau played decently in 2005. Why would you think he can't do it again?

Splitting time in 2005 (played in 15 games) he had 43 tackles, 4 PDs, 3 Ss, 2 FFs and 4 FRs. I don't think he's the long term answer, but if he comes back from his injury, then I can see him filling in adequately next year.

We definitely need some S youth behind Prioleau, Stoutmire, etc.... besides Reed Doughty that is.

Posted by: Bucktown Skins Fan | March 21, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

JLC - Is this blurb (below) from CBS SportsLine yesterday true? That Arch Deluxe was beaten out as a starter before the season ever began? If so, that's amazing - I don't remember that being reported, that would have been a HUGE story - the richest contract ever for a safety and he is a reserve from Game 1?

Archuleta lost the starting job in preseason and regained it for the first seven regular-season games only because of a knee injury to Pierson Prioleau.

Posted by: Pepper Rodgers | March 21, 2007 1:01 PM | Report abuse

nyskinsfan, you sound like you are $nyder himself. Talking to an ESPN reporter with truth is worse than throwing your helmet for a 15 yard unsportsmanslike conduct? This was clearly a NON-football-based decision about who/what Snyder likes and how Archuleta affects the Redskins "brand". This was NOT about football. This is a decision made for the fans who love the brand and buy the merchandise. Superficial and blame shifting. This was about spin. Blame everything was Archuleta, then get him out, prototype of a scape goat. Unfortunately, the goat remains ... and he still writes the checks and owns the team.

Posted by: dcsween | March 21, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse


Obviously Arch coming here was a mistake, but you sure do love to rip the Redskins every chance you get (must be the Ravens fan in you).

If Arch had stayed and continued to suck you would have blasted the Skins for keeping him. But they cut him loose, like they should have, and you blast them for that too.

He needed to go so he wouldn't be a worse cap hit in 2008 after getting nothing from him for 2 years, for which you would have blasted the Skins again.

Posted by: Rusty | March 21, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

startdebate - maybe they draft the replacement for Adam Archauleta?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

dc, you and I disagree on this one.

I mean, can you expect a player to contribute when he doesn't respect the coaching staff and the decisions they make? Worse, don't you think that GW lost a lot of respect when other players on the team got wind of the article--making them question the wisdom of their coaching staff? Is that a good thing?

I don't think it's about the brand as you say, it's a team/coaching chemistry thing.

Posted by: nyskinsfan | March 21, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Skins Fan Down South writes: Danny: Hands off. Let the guys who know what they are doing run the team.

I agree, but the problem is we don't have one of those guys. All of Redskins Nation needs to recognize that Joe Gibbs is not a good GM. It doesn't matter if Danny keeps his hands off if he's giving the team to someone who's also inept.

We need a GM. A real GM, not a coach/GM.

Posted by: Clinton Hill | March 21, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Same old FO... spending lots of greenbacks and getting nothing in return.

How bout drafting a lot of young talent, getting some early round picks and building a team?

Nope, they cant do that.

Posted by: John | March 21, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse


Because Arch said it means its truth? Him saying all that couldn't have anything to do with the fact that he was benched could it. He sucked, bad. Both sides are at fault here.

Posted by: Rusty | March 21, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and just to clarify...when I say refer to taking off one's helmet, I mean on the sideline as a way of bringing attention to one's self when arguing with coaching staff. NOT taking off one's helmet in the middle of the field resulting in a penalty.

Posted by: nyskinsfan | March 21, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

all the criticism jason is getting is unwaranted.

WTF is wrong with you haters? when was the last time this team WON ANYTHING???????????????????????????? and you guys are acting like jason killed your first born by stating the truth.

Not ONE of you brought up the fact that they plan on selecting the next Tom Brady in the 6th round. Cuz they're that good at picking players.

Yes, this trade was bad. Why? cuz both bears and adam wanted out BAD LEE!!!! so why not put your salesman hat on and NEGOTIATE a fcking DEAL!!!!!! and try not to be so CHARITABLE!!! and give him up for free.

They did the same with ramsey. St. Joe didn't pull the trigger when his price was at the highest instead he ruined his stock and then sell him for nothing.

Posted by: dealer | March 21, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Big surprise, I know, but I had this one all wrong.

I was under the impression that the salary cap implications would keep us from making any move to rid ourselves of BLloyd and Archuleta, the blog's two favorite whipping boys (aside from Brunell), and that they would both be back for '07 whether we liked it or not. So I'm really really pleased that this trade happened.

The healthy debate today up here has been good, but as usual the criticism of J-La is just tiresome.

Posted by: Nate in the PDX | March 21, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

They did the same with ramsey. St. Joe didn't pull the trigger when his price was at the highest instead he ruined his stock and then sell him for nothing.

Posted by: dealer | March 21, 2007 01:18 PM

Amen on that one. They could've dealt Ramsey to the Dolphins for Ogunleye straight up but passed. Think we couldn't have used him? Another example of their crying need for a real GM.

Posted by: skinswest | March 21, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Ok, I got an idea. Qhen they cut Mike Brown - WE sign him.

Whadaya think? We can't going back and forth on this Arch a Bust thingy. What's next?

Posted by: 4th | March 21, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Worse, don't you think that GW lost a lot of respect when other players on the team got wind of the article--making them question the wisdom of their coaching staff?

Posted by: nyskinsfan | March 21, 2007 01:13 PM

>>> I'm guessing the players had a pretty good sense about what they thought about Williams before hearing about the article. Also, the article spends much more time tooling on Steve Jackson (safeties coach) than it does Grilliams.


Because Arch said it means its truth?

Posted by: Rusty | March 21, 2007 01:16 PM

Nope. Because other unnamed sources in the article confirming it ... and no one, not even Redskins Park, denying it ... any of it. Compare the WaPo's "Lost Season" series against the Tom Friend article in ESPN. All the information is consistent.

Posted by: dcsween | March 21, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

I don't disagree with all of you - the FO's has punctuated a regular incompetence with flashes of dismaying choices. We've just beat the topic to death.

Posted by: FlimFlam | March 21, 2007 10:32 AM

(BYGO-lly, still catching up.)

And we shall continue to beat it to death until the Tea Dumpers start winning on a regular basis, by-gum.

Posted by: charlie | March 21, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Matt Schaub to Houston for a 2nd round draft pick.

Posted by: Rob | March 21, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Passing on Ogunleye was a terrible move at the time, don't think trading Ramsey then would have been wise, but we certainly could have had that DE we've needed. I still remember us not really entering the bidding and the Bears getting a great player, still stings....

Posted by: Jon | March 21, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

this trade was good for the skins They were going to cut him but instead got a 6th round pick and 5 mill less of a cap hit. To expect anything more is lunacy. as for gibbs beingcalled a liar, good. that is the sign of a good gm. if he says AA is not in the teams plans then they dont get anything for AA. He lies and says they will keep him and chi-town takes him off our hansds, helluva job. for those of you calling for a real gm, take a look at who gibbs has brought in since he got here. Taylor, cooley, griffin, springs, salavea, washington, cp, moss, el, carter, golston, campbell. Even with lloyd and AA as busts his track record is pretty good. He let pierce go and we all agree that was a mistake but other than that no one big has left and gibbs has added tons of talent. if he had kept his picks and drafted kids out of college he might have had the same good results but it is far more of a crapshoot. by signing guys in their fourth or fifth years, he avoids the rookie growing pains we have seen in c rogers and gets the players in their primes ready to contribute. sure it costs more but the skins have never had problems fitting anyone they want under the cap. if that is uncle junior VC's only job then he is doing well because they get who they want. They should pick landry, let him play center field and unleash the beast that is sean taylor. as for ryan clark, pitt aint givin him up. he is their starting safety and at like 2 mill ayear, he is one of the best bargains in the NFL. by the way, J LaC, can you put some info on the cap situation of the team after this trade. Semms like after this and wade it is probably very little left.

Posted by: bobolak | March 21, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

It's strange to see so many Redskins fans still separate Gibbs from Snyder--Gibbs does all good things and Snyder does all bad things. But from what I observed for the past several years, they are on the same page. It's Gibbs who contributed to all these ridiculous trades. HOF title doesn't warrant he can be always great, not now, not forever. Gibbs should leave, since the owner won't leave.

Posted by: Kevin | March 21, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

boblak- Just an approximation here, but I think they were between $8 and $10 million under the cap before Wade. Gotta figure his cap # is around $2.5 mil for '07, so that leaves between $5.5 and $7.5. Then the Arch deal...sounds like an additional $1.6 on his figure for '07, so now we're looking at around $4-6 mil under the cap. I still don't see Wynn sticking around unless he takes a Brunell-esque cut, so there's one place to gain a few mil back.

Posted by: 4-12 | March 21, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

nate nice to see you are up and moving after last night
kevin, it is fine to say get rid of Gibbs, but you need to have an alternative and I don't see anyone out there right now. GW no, AS no, Grimm took another job, not getting Cowher, let alone that you will then put a whole new system in place with a rookie quaterback

Posted by: connskins | March 21, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Jason, u r so full of it...If the redskins trade AA then is bad, but if the dont trade him and pay him the 5 mill and then next season he is the bust that he is, then it would cost 7.5 mill in dead money to cut him..and then you would be saying the Redskins should´ve cut last year when it was cheaper...

Just because you dont like the organization, dont dissed them all the time like you do...

They did the right thing, traded a player that didnt fit their scheme and that leaked info to the press...Yuck him.

Posted by: da skin | March 21, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

This Archuletta talk bores me.

Sean Taylor was orignially cast to push the kids on the swings for tha United Way commercial, but the 1st kid he pushed hasn't landed yet.

Posted by: etrod | March 21, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

i disagree. this is a good move for everyone. I would draft a defensive end with the 6th pick, cut philip daniels (too old, too slow, not that good) keep wynn and give it another shot next year with this current team. Hopefully with J. Campbell having more experience, one more year under the new offense, and the improvements on defense, and some luck with injuries we can be get back in the playoffs. If another losing season, time for Gibbs to retire, and for Danny Boy to blow it up. Fire everyone including Cerrato, hire a new GM, new coach, and cut all the old and expensive guys (Wynn, Springs, Griffin, Washington, Brunnel). Hire a new hot young coaching prospect, like the next Payton.

Posted by: bethesdaboy | March 21, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

HOF title doesn't warrant he can be always great, not now, not forever. Gibbs should leave, since the owner won't leave.

Posted by: Kevin | March 21, 2007 02:02 PM

Posted by: Heresy | March 21, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Not sure if there is any truth to this or not but the Wash Times included in their article that the Skins would use one of the 2 exceptions to spread Arch's hit over 2 years.

bethesdaboy - Daniels had surgery on both ankles. He was playing hurt badly last year. While he is pushing the age limit I think he is a better player than Wynn and cheaper as well.

Posted by: cdubb | March 21, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

I agree, Daniels is definitely better than Wynn (and cheaper). Wynn's only advantage is that he can (sort of) play DT and DE. We can keep Wynn, his cap # is bad, but we don't really need the money I don't think.

Is Suisham definitely going to be our kicker next year? Not sure how i feel about that...

Posted by: Jon | March 21, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Yes this was a good trade. Saves cap room for next year. A 6th round pick is a long-shot for any team, but a shot nonetheless.

I blame the Archuleta-Redskins failure on the Redskins, but that doesn't mean it's in the power of the Redskins to fix things. Arch is better off in Chicago, and the Redskins can potentially do more with the cap money and the pick.

Posted by: Johnnie Futbol | March 21, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

new post ... really just checking to see if the blog clock got fixed.

Posted by: dcsween | March 21, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Overall, good article and good blog today, I think.

One question from JLC in particular jumps out at me:

"Does this trade - a move, like all with the Redskins is purely the domain of Coach Joe and The Snyder - have more to do with non-football issues than what would purely make the most sense from a depth and roster standpoint? Smells that way to me."

In today's NFL, the line between football and non-football issues is thin and shrinking. Example: the Bengals entire team getting arrested (only a slight exaggeration, unfortunately). New commish Roger Goodell definitely sees this as a football related issue; so do the Bengals coaching staff, I guarantee. Those sorts of things can affect the how teams gell over a season in terms of overall chemistry. The point?

AD himself represented a whole range of "non-football issues" that affected the relationships between the coaching staff and the players. He clearly did not fit here, and for most (not all) of the year took it like a professional. However, even if he did not leak information for the Tom Friend ESPN story (which many in the org think he did), he DID publicly call out the defensive coaching staff at the end of the 2006 season by saying they had not been speaking with him. Right or wrong, that seemed to solidify the preception that he liked to talk to the media about team related matters that should stay behind closed doors. Maybe the team feared that this sort of thing would continue if he stayed around, and end up affecting the whole team. Chemistry, baby.

Sometimes, non-football issues can easily translate to poor performance on the football field in the NFL. I think that's the reason the 'skins org made this move, with an eye towards starting next season with a cleaner slate, and maybe repairing relationships between coaches and players (at least on the defensive side of the ball).

Intangibles and coach-player chemistry led to this move.

Posted by: Rennypolis | March 21, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

F Pasquarelli

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Ryan Clark began 2006 as a starting safety for the Steelers. He finished the year as a backup. He lost the starting job in mid-season.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

the problem with this team, is that the player they want to sign during free agency, no matter the position they don't investigate to find out, if he fits their system, and when they decide to trade the player apparently either, they can't tell if that player has any, value or don't know how to and don't have the guts, to ask for high picks they don't mind giving it up but, when it comes to asking for high picks they can't now as for adam Archuleta, trade Arch had at least forth round value or fifth, round not sixthround.

Posted by: armen | March 21, 2007 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Let's all pray for the day when the Redskins' net worth is (say it Dr. Evil style) $ 1 BILLION, and Dr. Dan himself will SELL THE TEAM to someone with Jack Kent Cookism in them. It burns me that this young guy can make football decisions that are so damn bad, yet this team continues to make money so that he really doesn't hurt from it.
Maybe Coach Joe needs to step up and look this guy in the eye and let him know 'either this way, or I'm out of here.' If Greg Williams is the heir-apparent with Russ Grimm still out there I'd rather hurt Williams' feelings and get Grimm. Next year could be one of the most critical in the recent history of the Redskins; if it's not at least 11-5 with 1-2 playoff victories fans should seriously consider their allegiance to and support of this team. It's real hard for me to turn against Coach Joe, but if it doesn't work out next year it may be his time to step aside.
Somebody find a Bobby Bethard, quickly.

Posted by: pete | March 21, 2007 10:20 PM | Report abuse

I like it. Maybe Dan will get the hang of it after taking a lump like this. Right on the back of his little head is a bump and if you touch it Danny screams "Archuleta"

But Jason, even to my amateuer eyes, this guy stunk. He would be a servicable backup to Taylor so maybe he could have gotten out of Joe Gibbs doghouse. Don't know about G. Williams doghouse, but as I recall in Gibbs 1, A certain offensive lineman who will remain nameless but wore the word Bostic on his jersey got benched for a period of time and came back to be a real Redskin. You would hope it could happen again, but the world turns and players get richer. Hey sorry it didn't work out. Dog pile on Danny.

Posted by: Vinchenzo | March 22, 2007 7:46 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company