Arch opens up...

[NCskinsfanatic]

Didn't see this posted...
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=ApvWRMAiZlV8lCmwaBlxM5U5nYcB?slug=ap-redskins-archuleta&prov=ap&type=lgns

[StogieHog]

Didn't he get benched because he wasn't playing good? Pretty simple to me.

[PennSkinsFan]

This is not the first time we have heard this about how players are treatedby Redskins park.

[Skins57]

can't blame Arch for taking the contract offered to him, when GW had to know he weakness is pass coverage, this move is all on the FO and they should be held responsable for it. Looks like another big cap hit for someone who won't be here

[BIGSEF3]

"I'm a grown man. I don't like getting lied to," Archuleta said. "All people want is for people to be straight up with them.

Didnt lavar say some crap about not knowing why he was benched. Then, we found out later, the coaches had told him and Lavar had been lying to seem innocent, save face, and make the coaches look bad?

[chrisbcbu]

The cap hit we take it would probably be better to just keep him and use him as strictly a blitzer.

[NCskinsfanatic]

This is not the first time we have heard this about how players are treatedby Redskins park.
I agree and it's usually defensive players more times than not, best i can remember. I think Arch feels like they told him he'd be used much like he was in St.Louis but even if that were GW's plan, Prileaou going down didn't help the situation. It sounds like he's gone but I really wish we could have used him like the Rams did and not waste a lot of cap space, that's a lot of dead money on the books for the next couple of seasons and he has some skills.

[BIGSEF3]

The cap hit we take it would probably be better to just keep him and use him as strictly a blitzer.

I agree. I dont see how we can be so upset at his performance. To para-quote Denny Greens rant after the Bears loss: "He is what we thought he was."

This team likes to make examples of people too much. I'd love to see Gibbs step in and try to patch things up between AA and Williams. It would be better for the team (salarycapwise) to keep AA for atleast another year and use him in ways that suit his talents. Williams has openly said he is going to consider changing his defensive philosophy this offseason - wouldnt it be prudent to keep AA around a while and see if there could be a place for him here?

[StogieHog]

some players are babies. if you are going to get paid the big bucks you better play like you are getting paid the big bucks or else sit your butt on the bench.

[danny's stogie]

some players are babies. if you are going to get paid the big bucks you better play like you are getting paid the big bucks or else sit your butt on the bench.

This might be the most sensible thing I've read on this site since June.

[LATrueRedskin]

Chalk this up to another stupid, mindboggling decision by the Redskins. We recruit this guy, telling him he'll be blitzing and playing the line of scrimmage and blah blah blah, then we stick him in coverage; ultimately benching him because our secondary is terrible. Meanwhile, Carlos Rogers is free to drop as many INTs as he wishes. And to top it off, we cut off all communication with the guy like he has the plague. If I'm a potential free agent, this situation plays a part in my decision-making on whether or not to sign with the Redskins.

Maybe Arch can double-up his insane workouts and bulk up to become a linebacker. Lord knows we need help there. But I'm sure we'll cut him, take a cap hit, and he'll sign with Chicago and play well for them.

[LadyNRedskinsfan]

Chalk this up to another stupid, mindboggling decision by the Redskins. We recruit this guy, telling him he'll be blitzing and playing the line of scrimmage and blah blah blah, then we stick him in coverage; ultimately benching him because our secondary is terrible. Meanwhile, Carlos Rogers is free to drop as many INTs as he wishes. And to top it off, we cut off all communication with the guy like he has the plague. If I'm a potential free agent, this situation plays a part in my decision-making on whether or not to sign with the Redskins.

Maybe Arch can double-up his insane workouts and bulk up to become a linebacker. Lord knows we need help there. But I'm sure we'll cut him, take a cap hit, and he'll sign with Chicago and play well for them.
yep.....that sounds about right. :doh:

i dont like reading things like this. first of all, it shows how bad of a decision signing arch was and then it shows a lack of communication between the coaches and players. like NC mentioned, why is it that the only players that seem to have these problems are on the defensive side?

[akhhorus]

This might be the most sensible thing I've read on this site since June.

Amen. I don't understand why the players get free passes with some people(unless its Brunell). If the team is losing, its has to be the coaches' fault. If a player's benched, the coaches have to be lying to him about things and he's getting screwed. If Arch played well or decently when in, he could have a case(same with Lavar Love Hewitt) that the coaches are being naughty or dishonest.

[BIGSEF3]

i think a better name for this thread would be "Deepskin Opens Up"

[chrisbcbu]

yep.....that sounds about right. :doh:

i dont like reading things like this. first of all, it shows how bad of a decision signing arch was and then it shows a lack of communication between the coaches and players. like NC mentioned, why is it that the only players that seem to have these problems are on the defensive side?

Gregg Williams perhaps?

The 2nd g in his first name used to mean genius, now i dont think it means that anymore.

[danny's stogie]

Amen. I don't understand why the players get free passes with some people(unless its Brunell). If the team is losing, its has to be the coaches' fault. If a player's benched, the coaches have to be lying to him about things and he's getting screwed. If Arch played well or decently when in, he could have a case(same with Lavar Love Hewitt) that the coaches are being naughty or dishonest.

It says a ton about a player when a vet signed off the street in week 7 (Vincent) has a better grasp of the defense after only a couple of days of practice. My only qualm is that he was at least tackling well. I wish they found a way to use him occassionally because of that. Anyways, signing him was obviously a huge mistake. I'm just glad they've pretty much cut bait and moved on rather than suffer with him for a few seasons just to save face.

[chrisbcbu]

It says a ton about a player when a vet signed off the street in week 7 (Vincent) has a better grasp of the defense after only a couple of days of practice. My only qualm is that he was at least tackling well. I wish they found a way to use him occassionally because of that. Anyways, signing him was obviously a huge mistake. I'm just glad they've pretty much cut bait and moved on rather than suffer with him for a few seasons just to save face.

You really cant make that comparison since Vincent was signed because he knew the scheme already. He played for GW in Buffalo.

[akhhorus]

It says a ton about a player when a vet signed off the street in week 7 (Vincent) has a better grasp of the defense after only a couple of days of practice. My only qualm is that he was at least tackling well. I wish they found a way to use him occassionally because of that. Anyways, signing him was obviously a huge mistake. I'm just glad they've pretty much cut bait and moved on rather than suffer with him for a few seasons just to save face.

The one thing you can credit the FO for doing is not letting contracts kill the skins for very long. They take the hit and move on quickly.

[danny's stogie]

You really cant make that comparison since Vincent was signed because he knew the scheme already. He played for GW in Buffalo.

Vincent never played for GW.

[chrisbcbu]

Vincent never played for GW.

Thats my fault. But he still played in the same scheme if i remember correctly. The DC that Vincent played for learned from GW then eventually came over here to coach our DBs. So he is still playing for the same coach he had in Buffalo.

[danny's stogie]

Thats my fault. But he still played in the same scheme if i remember correctly. The DC that Vincent played for learned from GW then eventually came over here to coach our DBs. So he is still playing for the same coach he had in Buffalo.

And Arch played in Lovie Smith's cover 2 and GW has played a very similar style of defense this season...

Anyways, Vincent played for Gray, but that's still different from following the defensive coordinator from Buffalo to Washington. Arch has no excuse for being ousted by a guy in street clothes the week before.

[NCskinsfanatic]

What no love for Arch guys...lol. I can see both sides of the argument but no relationship works without open lines of communication, that's the part that concerns me. That and what did GW see in Arch that he just had to have the guy? Knowing his limitations in coverage you have to figure GW was just plain wrong, or that the losses of both Prileaou and Springs for extensive periods wrecked his entire scheme leaving Arch overmatched and overpaid.

[BIGSEF3]

And Arch played in Lovie Smith's cover 2 and GW has played a very similar style of defense this season...

Anyways, Vincent played for Gray, but that's still different from following the defensive coordinator from Buffalo to Washington. Arch has no excuse for being ousted by a guy in street clothes the week before.

Im not defending AA, but Vincent didnt play safety any better than AA. Vincent started over AA because whatever is going on between him and the coaching staff is personal. Whatever happened probably OFF the field IS probably AAs fault, but GW is arrogant and once youre in his doghouse, youre in, and youre not coming out. But AAs play ON THE FIELD was never bad enough to be benched this long. YOu give a guy longer to learn a new system than this team did - especially given the lax nature of this years offseason program and the fact that the entire defense is ranked last (or close to it) in nearly every stat imaginable. AA may deserve to be benched based on what he did off the field, but he doesnt deserve it for what he did (or didnt do) on the field.

[chrisbcbu]

Im not defending AA, but Vincent didnt play safety any better than AA. Vincent started over AA because whatever is going on between him and the coaching staff is personal. Whatever happened probably OFF the field IS probably AAs fault, but GW is arrogant and once youre in his doghouse, youre in, and youre not coming out. But AAs play ON THE FIELD was never bad enough to be benched this long. YOu give a guy longer to learn a new system than this team did - especially given the lax nature of this years offseason program and the fact that the entire defense is ranked last (or close to it) in nearly every stat imaginable. AA may deserve to be benched based on what he did off the field, but he doesnt deserve it for what he did (or didnt do) on the field.

I actually think the when PP was injuried in the kickoff of the first game that ruined everything they had planned with AA. That threw him into the fire before he was ready and he didnt quite understand and know his responsibilities.

tho i was really hoping that after all this time that has lapsed he would have been able to make it back onto the field. So there has to be something else underlying all of this that we are not getting that would cause GW to sit him this long without even letting him play on definate running plays.

[hail2skins]

He even made it to Redskins.com even though he did say much other than I don't want to get into that right now and I have a lot to evaluate that he's learned a lot.

[skinsfan-ny]

some players are babies. if you are going to get paid the big bucks you better play like you are getting paid the big bucks or else sit your butt on the bench.

I guess some players can be big babies but I think this situation is a little different. It's hard to imagine that arch made little or no progress by this point in the season. They could have put him in some packages such as obvious running situations where they could have utilized his strenghts. Seems like there's more to this story.

[silverspring]

The one thing you can credit the FO for doing is not letting contracts kill the skins for very long. They take the hit and move on quickly.

Do you know what exactly the hit is we will have for cutting him?

The guy just was not the right person for GW's scheme and then he was not used within the scheme to highlight his strong points on top of that. It was one of the stupidest acquistions we made especially considering the blockbuster contract we gave him and he certainly didn't help matters with his inability to learn new things. I mean he was never suppose to be a great cover guy, but it wasn't like he had hidden talents or versatility that could be cultivated. It does not suprise me one bit that he is bitter and upset about the whole situation.

[akhhorus]

Do you know what exactly the hit is we will have for cutting him?

Im really not sure. Ive heard that it will be a clean cut(and we'll eat 3.5-4 million in dead space), but I've also read that if we cut him, we guarantee 5 million spread out over 2007-2009(not a lot frankly, 3 of the 5 million of it is owed in 2009) along with the dead cap money.

[danny's stogie]

I guess some players can be big babies but I think this situation is a little different. It's hard to imagine that arch made little or no progress by this point in the season. They could have put him in some packages such as obvious running situations where they could have utilized his strenghts. Seems like there's more to this story.

Whatever happened to: this player can play and this one can't? I swear, sometimes I think people on this site think the coaching staff and front office are actually trying just to fail to spite us.

[akhhorus]

Whatever happened to: this player can play and this one can't? I swear, sometimes I think people on this site think the coaching staff and front office are actually trying to fail to spite us.

Also agreed, but I think that some people are willing to believe anything said about the coaches and FO because they want to demonize them.

[chrisbcbu]

I guess some players can be big babies but I think this situation is a little different. It's hard to imagine that arch made little or no progress by this point in the season. They could have put him in some packages such as obvious running situations where they could have utilized his strenghts. Seems like there's more to this story.

What i dont get is that we was his faults and his strengths were. (we means us fans on this site) So that would only make sense that the Skins would also know this as well. So did GW still want him even tho everyone knew he couldnt cover? Did GW think he could teach AA to cover receivers? If he did know about his inability to cover the pass why not just use him for run situations

Or GW could have changed his scheme to fit the players!! :rolleyes:

[CNYSkinFan]

Maybe I am wrong, and feel free to prove me wrong if you can, but has Arch ever had a history of crying to the media? He must have just snapped. Obviously nothing could be wrong with the way the coaching staff on defense is interacting with the players. I mean just because Springs has come out and said stuff, that means nothing either. he must be a complete cry baby as well. It's obvious that Springs and Arch, two players who have a history of complaining to the media and being trouble low character players in the league are just causing problems. I mean this defense was fierce all year and has done nothing but get better each succesive year. What could they possibly have to complain about?

[/sarcasm]

http://images.southparkstudios.com/media/images/703/703_image_01.jpg

Nothing to see here, move along, nothing is wrong at Redskins Park.

[hogs86]

He is so gone...

[skinsfan-ny]

Whatever happened to: this player can play and this one can't? I swear, sometimes I think people on this site think the coaching staff and front office are actually trying just to fail to spite us.

I agree that some players can play well and some just cannot. If arch is not a "super smart" player and is not good enough to get on the field for a few snaps on defense then some of the blame has to fall on the coaches and FO. Who evaluated him? Who made him the highest paid safety in the league? The coaches had a big influence on this decision.

It's not like they inherited this high priced player, they brought him in.

[danny's stogie]

I agree that some players can play well and some just cannot. If arch is not a "super smart" player and is not good enough to get on the field for a few snaps on defense then some of the blame has to fall on the coaches and FO. Who evaluated him? Who made him the highest paid safety in the league? The coaches had a big influence on this decision.

It's not like they inherited this high priced player, they brought him in.

They made a mistake signing him, that's for darn sure, but a contract is a two-way street, Arch has a responsibility to live up to the salary he is getting paid. If the Skins are willing to pay him that much money why in the world would they bench him for no reason other than a personal grudge? It simply defies all logic and common sense.

[smoak]

some players are babies. if you are going to get paid the big bucks you better play like you are getting paid the big bucks or else sit your butt on the bench.

Amen. I'm tired of players who say all the right things when they are accepting that bonus check but who cry like little babies the second someone calls them out. Arch is a fraud and I hope we pay him to sit on the bench next season.

Loser.

[skinsfan-ny]

They made a mistake signing him, that's for darn sure, but a contract is a two-way street, Arch has a responsibility to live up to the salary he is getting paid. If the Skins are willing to pay him that much money why in the world would they bench him for no reason other than a personal grudge? It simply defies all logic and common sense.

I could be wrong and it won't be the first or last but I cannot image that arch is so bad that he cannot even get on the field for one defensive snap. If they can play holdman on a regular basis then I think they can find a spot for arch. Like you said, it defies logic and common sense.

[Keino]

His quotes seem to to me that he feels like he isn't getting an honest appraisal from the coaches about his play. Im wondering if Jackson is telling him he's doing well and praising and not coaching him up?

[akhhorus]

I could be wrong and it won't be the first or last but I cannot image that arch is so bad that he cannot even get on the field for one defensive snap. If they can play holdman on a regular basis then I think they can find a spot for arch. Like you said, it defies logic and common sense.

The man can tackle, blitz and play the run, but due to the state of the CBs, we need a coverage safety much more than that. Arch is one of the worse pass covering safeties I've seen. I don't think he's a terrible safety, but he has no role in the defense currently. With prioleau back and a quality CB brought in, Arch has a role as the blitzing safety.

[guinness4health]

If what arch is saying is true....(and I know this is one one side of the story)...

then williams is worse with the people side of this business than I thought....

and if there is any truth to this at all then there is no way in hell he is ever going to get another head coaching job...not here or anywhere....

the guy is a great defensive mind, but you can't treat people like this and expect results, especially in the salary cap era where you can't afford to simply cut bait if it is not working out...

[guinness4health]

The man can tackle, blitz and play the run, but due to the state of the CBs, we need a coverage safety much more than that. Arch is one of the worse pass covering safeties I've seen. I don't think he's a terrible safety, but he has no role in the defense currently. With prioleau back and a quality CB brought in, Arch has a role as the blitzing safety.

good point

[akhhorus]

good point

It means they can play Williams' favorite blitz package: the 3-3-5 with arch as the Spur safety playing up and attacking.

[Skinz4lyfe]

IMO, no matter how you slice it, it comes down to GW and his coaching staff. They wanted Arch so badly that we made him the highest paid safety in NFL history. They better find a way to make it work!! If you think about it, Arch doesn't have a history of mouthing off and complaining. I find it very difficult to believe that they can't find to get him in any "defensive packages" on the field. I'm getting very tired of how stuborn our coaching staff can be at time. I've heard GW say "it's the scheme" way too long. Bottom line is we don't have any playmakers other than #21 on the defensive side of the ball (with apologies to Marcus Washington). Sure Arch's coverage was horrible but why is the coaching staff placing him in situations where he has never done well. Why did it take so long last year to play Arrington when everybody in the world could see how badly Warrick Holdman sucked? (and I'm not buying the injury card on that one). Plugging Marshall in for Pierce wouldn't have been so bad if we didn't lose Arrington. LA wasn't playing up to his contract but he was far better than Holdman. Now we ended up re-signing Holdman, then trading up in the draft to pick McIntosh but still wouldn't start him until last week due to Marcus Washington being on IR. Warrick Holdman is not a starting LB, so why not play Rocky? I'm starting to think someone (or people) in our defensive coaching staff need to get it together fast! There is no excuse from going from the #3 defense to #30 in 2 years!

[akhhorus]

IMO, no matter how you slice it, it comes down to GW and his coaching staff. They wanted Arch so badly that we made him the highest paid safety in NFL history. They better find a way to make it work!! If you think about it, Arch doesn't have a history of mouthing off and complaining. I find it very difficult to believe that they can't find to get him in any "defensive packages" on the field. I'm getting very tired of how stuborn our coaching staff can be at time. I've heard GW say "it's the scheme" way too long. Bottom line is we don't have any playmakers other than #21 on the defensive side of the ball (with apologies to Marcus Washington). Sure Arch's coverage was horrible but why is the coaching staff placing him in situations where he has never done well. Why did it take so long last year to play Arrington when everybody in the world could see how badly Warrick Holdman sucked? (and I'm not buying the injury card on that one). Plugging Marshall in for Pierce wouldn't have been so bad if we didn't lose Arrington. LA wasn't playing up to his contract but he was far better than Holdman. Now we ended up re-signing Holdman, then trading up in the draft to pick McIntosh but still wouldn't start him until last week due to Marcus Washington being on IR. Warrick Holdman is not a starting LB, so why not play Rocky? I'm starting to think someone (or people) in our defensive coaching staff need to get it together fast! There is no excuse from going from the #3 defense to #30 in 2 years!

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Nothing is ever the fault of the player(s) to some people, its the coaches' fault :rolleyes:. And btw, Arch wasn't the highest paid safety ever, Reed is(to be fair, Arch might have been for a couple days before Reed signed his mega extension). Holdman in 2006 is better than 2005 Lavar Love Hewitt(who was just awful last year anyway you slice it, ask LT how great Lavar was). The coaching staff does deserve some blame for the how the defense played this year, but they are powerless as Marshall, Washington, Springs, Rogers, Griff and Mighty Joe are injured or totally regress as players.

[Brokenstriker]

I figure its an either or situation with little chance of something in the middle ...

if its like AA says it is ... he's right

if its not like AA says it is ... he's a loser

time will tell

[Skinz4lyfe]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Nothing is ever the fault of the player(s) to some people, its the coaches' fault :rolleyes:. And btw, Arch wasn't the highest paid safety ever, Reed is(to be fair, Arch might have been for a couple days before Reed signed his mega extension). Holdman in 2006 is better than 2005 Lavar Love Hewitt(who was just awful last year anyway you slice it, ask LT how great Lavar was). The coaching staff does deserve some blame for the how the defense played this year, but they are powerless as Marshall, Washington, Springs, Rogers, Griff and Mighty Joe are injured or totally regress as players.


I'm saying it's the coaches fault because they wanted Arch badly last off-season so they need to make a better attempt it work. Didn't they know how bad he is in coverage? Did they watch the film of him in St. Louis? So why ask him to remotely ask him to cover somebody? Sure I'll agree injuries played a role in him having to play more coverage but that's no excuse for not playing him at all. You can't tell me there wasn't one defensive series in the last 7 games where he couldn't play. The same goes for Rocky. The ultimate blame is on the coaches!

[BurgundyNGold]

This might be the most sensible thing I've read on this site since June.
Meh. You're just bonding with your "stogie" brother, lol.

[akhhorus]

I'm saying it's the coaches fault because they wanted Arch badly last off-season so they need to make a better attempt it work. Didn't they know how bad he is in coverage? Did they watch the film of him in St. Louis? So why ask him to remotely ask him to cover somebody? Sure I'll agree injuries played a role in him having to play more coverage but that's no excuse for not playing him at all.

Read my previous post(and others') about how Arch might not have been intended to play the role he did. Losing Priloeau on the very first play might have killed Arch's role here. With Priloeau(who can cover well) last year, the skins could play Taylor, Stoumire and Clark up as an attacking safety. Without him, they couldn't and Arch was forced into a position he can't play.

You can't tell me there wasn't one defensive series in the last 7 games where he couldn't play. The same goes for Rocky. The ultimate blame is on the coaches!

You can't tell me that Arch would have played any better than Fox. Fox at least is halfway competant in coverage. Arch isn't. As for Rocky, he has the atheleticism, but until last week, he looked lost when he played defense. Especially in coverage.

[skinsfan-ny]

The man can tackle, blitz and play the run, but due to the state of the CBs, we need a coverage safety much more than that. Arch is one of the worse pass covering safeties I've seen. I don't think he's a terrible safety, but he has no role in the defense currently. With prioleau back and a quality CB brought in, Arch has a role as the blitzing safety.

Well even with prioleau back and a new quality cb someone would have to come out for arch to get on the field. He might have been a good fit for the 3-3-5 but why bring in a role player of this type and pay him all that money?

[Skinz4lyfe]

You can't tell me that Arch would have played any better than Fox. Fox at least is halfway competant in coverage. Arch isn't. As for Rocky, he has the atheleticism, but until last week, he looked lost when he played defense. Especially in coverage.

I agree Fox (and Vincent) are better in coverage but Fox is equally as bad against the run. He takes horrible angles and is an inferior tackler. However there is still no excuse for not allowing Arch to play 1 defensive snap in that last 7 games.

Rocky did not look any worse than Holdman out there. Let the young guy take his lumps and learn. What do we have to lose? We're freakin' 5-10.

[akhhorus]

Well even with prioleau back and a new quality cb someone would have to come out for arch to get on the field. He might have been a good fit for the 3-3-5 but why bring in a role player of this type and pay him all that money?

Its a temporary solution. Arch might be too expensive to cut this offseason, but be affordable after next season. Might as well find a role for him to contribute in.

[akhhorus]

I agree Fox (and Vincent) are better in coverage but Fox is equally as bad against the run. He takes horrible angles and is an inferior tackler. However there is still no excuse for not allowing Arch to play 1 defensive snap in that last 7 games.

Thats not an argument. And there is a good reason you wouldn't play Arch: unless you think he'd be worse. If/When Arch is out there(and when he was out there earlier), he had a big bullseye on him in coverage.

Rocky did not look any worse than Holdman out there. Let the young guy take his lumps and learn. What do we have to lose? We're freakin' 5-10.

Holdman isn't the weak link of the Lbs, Marshall is. Holdman is up and down(more down). Rocky's athleticism compared to Holdman is mitigated by Holdman's experience. Rocky did bite on misdirections a lot last week.

[redskin_rich]

I think there is definitely a communication problem between the defensive staff and the players and it starts with GW. I understand and agree that when PP went down, it altered the scheme in the secondary and Arch was exposed as a liability in coverage. So, he gets replaced as a starter, that's expected and I wouldn't want our coaches doing that any other way. Play who best gives you a chance for success.
What I don't like is how the coaches have refused to address this, both through the media and more importantly, directly to the player. There is a pattern developing here and it is not one that is characteristic of a Gibbs coached team. There should never be a lack of communication between player and coach and any potential controversy should be addressed and quelled immediately, never should it be allowed to fester. Gibbs has always been a man of character and addressed his players immediately on any problems. Unfortunately, I don't think GW shares those traits.

[CNYSkinFan]

I think there is definitely a communication problem between the defensive staff and the players and it starts with GW. I understand and agree that when PP went down, it altered the scheme in the secondary and Arch was exposed as a liability in coverage. So, he gets replaced as a starter, that's expected and I wouldn't want our coaches doing that any other way. Play who best gives you a chance for success.
What I don't like is how the coaches have refused to address this, both through the media and more importantly, directly to the player. There is a pattern developing here and it is not one that is characteristic of a Gibbs coached team. There should never be a lack of communication between player and coach and any potential controversy should be addressed and quelled immediately, never should it be allowed to fester. Gibbs has always been a man of character and addressed his players immediately on any problems. Unfortunately, I don't think GW shares those traits.
stop kissing up to those cry baby players. Don't you know that it is all their fault? It can only be the players fault. It's not like GW has a history of losing entire teams like he did in Buffalo. It's not like high character players like Springs and Arch are actually saying the things that supposed low character guys like Lavar, Smoot, and Pierce said. It's obvious to me that they are all wrong.

[akhhorus]

stop kissing up to those cry baby players. Don't you know that it is all their fault? It can only be the players fault. It's not like GW has a history of losing entire teams like he did in Buffalo. It's not like high character players like Springs and Arch are actually saying the things that supposed low character guys like Lavar, Smoot, and Pierce said. It's obvious to me that they are all wrong.

[/sarcasm]

Its everyone's fault-players, coaches, FO, cheerleaders, Snyder, Asian hookers; but there is a reluctance of some people's part to blame the players for anything. The coaches can only do so much good and bad, the players have to play on the field.

[redskin_rich]

stop kissing up to those cry baby players. Don't you know that it is all their fault? It can only be the players fault. It's not like GW has a history of losing entire teams like he did in Buffalo. It's not like high character players like Springs and Arch are actually saying the things that supposed low character guys like Lavar, Smoot, and Pierce said. It's obvious to me that they are all wrong.
I hope your not directing your sarcasm towards me. I have been consistent in my opinion that GW has been an egotististical, uncompromising coach that places his 'system' above the skills of his personnel.
That said, I still believe he is a good coach but he will never be great until he learns to adapt.

[CNYSkinFan]

[/sarcasm]

Its everyone's fault-players, coaches, FO, cheerleaders, Snyder, Asian hookers; but there is a reluctance of some people's part to blame the players for anything. The coaches can only do so much good and bad, the players have to play on the field.
hey have you seen my blasting of players? I am an equal opportunity blaster...espescially Holdman :)

But something is rotten at Redskin park, espescially on the defensive side of the ball. The offense seems to be clicking and playing hard. At times it is like the defense is just giving up. I am leaning toward whole sale changed on that side of the coaching staff, including GW, if there is no improvement next year.

[CNYSkinFan]

I hope your not directing your sarcasm towards me. I have been consistent in my opinion that GW has been an egotististical, uncompromising coach that places his 'system' above the skills of his personnel.
That said, I still believe he is a good coach but he will never be great until he learns to adapt.
no it was directed at those who consistently absolve the coaches of any blame. Not you Rich.

[halter91]

wow, 7 frickin' years? That's gonna hurt the salary cap just a little. :rolleyes:

[akhhorus]

hey have you seen my blasting of players? I am an equal opportunity blaster...espescially Holdman :)

But something is rotten at Redskin park, espescially on the defensive side of the ball. The offense seems to be clicking and playing hard. At times it is like the defense is just giving up. I am leaning toward whole sale changed on that side of the coaching staff, including GW, if there is no improvement next year.

The defense seems to have 2 quarters of hard play in them and then they fall apart. I think the problem is progressive systemic failure. Starting with the inability to stop the pass. I'm willing to give Williams another year to turn it around, but he should restructure things and get himself a good reliably on the field CB. I also think the defense has been undermined by some players suddenly turning old(washington, Holdman, Marshall, Springs, Mighty Joe, Daniels). They need an infusion of athleticism and speed.

[akhhorus]

wow, 7 frickin' years? That's gonna hurt the salary cap just a little. :rolleyes:

If we keep him 7 years. He's owed a ton of base salary money in the future(which he'll never see). That cuts down what he'll eventually get substantially(by about 20 millionish).

[BurgundyNGold]

[/sarcasm]

Its everyone's fault-players, coaches, FO, cheerleaders, Snyder, Asian hookers; but there is a reluctance of some people's part to blame the players for anything. The coaches can only do so much good and bad, the players have to play on the field.
Hey, hey, hey, hey.

Hey.

Hey.

Let's leave the hookers out of this, lol.

[CNYSkinFan]

The defense seems to have 2 quarters of hard play in them and then they fall apart. I think the problem is progressive systemic failure. Starting with the inability to stop the pass. I'm willing to give Williams another year to turn it around, but he should restructure things and get himself a good reliably on the field CB. I also think the defense has been undermined by some players suddenly turning old(washington, Holdman, Marshall, Springs, Mighty Joe, Daniels). They need an infusion of athleticism and speed.
All that may be true but you have to admit, this is a pattern with GW. He wears on his players after awhile and they stop playing for him. It happened in Buffalo. I am afraid it is more then systemic, I think there are true management issues that may not be resolved. How you deal with those working for you is not a skill easily changed.

[CNYSkinFan]

Hey, hey, hey, hey.

Hey.

Hey.

Let's leave the hookers out of this, lol.
at least he differentiated between the hookers and the cheerleaders

[BurgundyNGold]

at least he differentiated between the hookers and the cheerleaders
At least I have a chance with the hookers. A slim one, but there's always hope. :D

[akhhorus]

All that may be true but you have to admit, this is a pattern with GW. He wears on his players after awhile and they stop playing for him. It happened in Buffalo. I am afraid it is more then systemic, I think there are true management issues that may not be resolved. How you deal with those working for you is not a skill easily changed.

I believe he also lost a lot of talent(free agency and injury) and assistant coaches on defense and never was able to organize an effective offense. He conflicts with strong personalities for sure, but he's also a great d-coordinator. Look at the players he meshes with, all quiet, unassuming ones.

[redskin_rich]

I believe he also lost a lot of talent(free agency and injury) and assistant coaches on defense and never was able to organize an effective offense. He conflicts with strong personalities for sure, but he's also a great d-coordinator. Look at the players he meshes with, all quiet, unassuming ones.
Would you want GW to be the successor to Gibbs at Head Coach?

[CNYSkinFan]

I believe he also lost a lot of talent(free agency and injury) and assistant coaches on defense and never was able to organize an effective offense. He conflicts with strong personalities for sure, but he's also a great d-coordinator. Look at the players he meshes with, all quiet, unassuming ones.
Sure but that was arch before the season, Springs as well. As you know I gave him the benefit of the doubt with Pierce, Smoot, Clark....Lavar I was definitely against but never blamed GW (lindsey but not GW). But now guys like Springs and Arch are out there unhappy. Springs has never been a problem player...Arch was known ffor his workman type attitude and quiet, humble demeanor.

This may be the Canary in the coal mine.

[akhhorus]

Would you want GW to be the successor to Gibbs at Head Coach?

I never did. He was a disaster in buffalo and no matter how good he was here, being a HC is different. I think Gibbs will reach outside and find someone like from the vague Gibbs offensive tree, unless Saunders gets the offense humming next season.

[CNYSkinFan]

Would you want GW to be the successor to Gibbs at Head Coach?
I don't know if this is only directed to Akh, but in my mind unequivocally NO. I don't want Saunders either. Both have a surprising lack of adaptability so far and both have egos the size of the grand canyon. I would rather start over with a new coach.

[CNYSkinFan]

I believe he also lost a lot of talent(free agency and injury) and assistant coaches on defense and never was able to organize an effective offense. He conflicts with strong personalities for sure, but he's also a great d-coordinator. Look at the players he meshes with, all quiet, unassuming ones.
Grimm if Grimm does not get a job this next year?

[akhhorus]

Sure but that was arch before the season, Springs as well. As you know I gave him the benefit of the doubt with Pierce, Smoot, Clark....Lavar I was definitely against but never blamed GW (lindsey but not GW). But now guys like Springs and Arch are out there unhappy. Springs has never been a problem player...Arch was known ffor his workman type attitude and quiet, humble demeanor.

This may be the Canary in the coal mine.

Disagree on both. Springs isn't being a misanthrope like COles/Lavar/etc, he's just resigned(not in the contractual sense) himself that he's probably leaving. Arch has been unassuming publically in the past, but he's an outsider. If this was Holdman, Marshall, Griff, Daniels, washington, etc making these comments, I would agree. Either Arch was a total bust, or just ended up in a bad situation here; either way, I can't take what he says seriously.

[akhhorus]

Grimm if Grimm does not get a job this next year?

Big step from Oline coach to HC. Maybe. Cowher, if he leaves, would be first in line.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

I don't know if this is only directed to Akh, but in my mind unequivocally NO. I don't want Saunders either. Both have a surprising lack of adaptability so far and both have egos the size of the grand canyon. I would rather start over with a new coach.
I agree.

[redskin_rich]

I never did. He was a disaster in buffalo and no matter how good he was here, being a HC is different. I think Gibbs will reach outside and find someone like from the vague Gibbs offensive tree, unless Saunders gets the offense humming next season.
I don't know if this is only directed to Akh, but in my mind unequivocally NO. I don't want Saunders either. Both have a surprising lack of adaptability so far and both have egos the size of the grand canyon. I would rather start over with a new coach.I addressed the question to Akh but I would like to hear from everybody. I may have to start a new poll but I will wait until next week. In the meanwhile, here is a similar poll that was taken before this season. I am in a small minority that didn't want GW as the next Head Coach.



http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=35067&highlight=next+head+coach

[akhhorus]

I addressed the question to Akh but I would like to hear from everybody. I may have to start a new poll but I will wait until next week. In the meanwhile, here is a similar poll that was taken before this season. I am in a small minority that didn't want GW as the next Head Coach.

http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=35067&highlight=next+head+coach

This post makes some sense....:D (http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=751819&postcount=2)

[SpicyMcHaggis]

This post makes some sense....:D (http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=751819&postcount=2)
;)

[BurgundyNGold]

This post makes some sense....:D (http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=751819&postcount=2)
We're discussing who can be the next coach? OK... NOW we can introduce the hookers.

[CNYSkinFan]

I was for Williams before I was against him :)

Seriously Williams has dropped ALOT in my mind this year. It's not that his defense has played badly, it is that he lacked the adaptation needed to even bring us to mediocrity.

[CNYSkinFan]

We're discussing who can be the next coach? OK... NOW we can introduce the hookers.
Larry Brown coaches basketball :)

[BurgundyNGold]

I was for Williams before I was against him :)

Seriously Williams has dropped ALOT in my mind this year. It's not that his defense has played badly, it is that he lacked the adaptation needed to even bring us to mediocrity.
I still marvel that in the 3 yearas he has been here the Tampa 2 has never worked, yet he STILL uses it. Ridiculous. That shows a certain commitment to inflexibility, I think.

[Redskinfan28]

Didn't see this posted...
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=ApvWRMAiZlV8lCmwaBlxM5U5nYcB?slug=ap-redskins-archuleta&prov=ap&type=lgns

This was one of the worst FA signings in NFL history.

[akhhorus]

This was one of the worst FA signings in NFL history.

He wasn't even the worse in the nfl from this past offseason. Aaron Brooks, Edge James, Maake Kemoeatu and Nate Burleson(who got 49 million bucks and contributed 177 recieving yards this season) were all worse.

[Meatsnack]

Big step from Oline coach to HC. Maybe. Cowher, if he leaves, would be first in line.
Grimm was made Asst. Head Coach/Offensive Line two years ago to keep us from hiring him as o-line coach. He apparently is Cowhers leftenant. I would have Russ back in a heartbeat. Cowher would need a GM. for one thing...

[akhhorus]

Grimm was made Asst. Head Coach/Offensive Line two years ago to keep us from hiring him as o-line coach. He apparently is Cowhers leftenant. I would have Russ back in a heartbeat. Cowher would need a GM. for one thing...

Interesting. Thanks for the clarification.

[danny's stogie]

stop kissing up to those cry baby players. Don't you know that it is all their fault? It can only be the players fault. It's not like GW has a history of losing entire teams like he did in Buffalo. It's not like high character players like Springs and Arch are actually saying the things that supposed low character guys like Lavar, Smoot, and Pierce said. It's obvious to me that they are all wrong.

CNY, please chill with the hyperbole. No one says the coaches are infallable, but you have to admit that some of the players also deserve some of the blame. Arch got a ton of money to play in DC and he hasn't lived up to the contract as evidenced by getting benched in favor a player picked up off the street. On the other hand, a player like Carter looked just as bad at the time and makes just as much money, but GW stuck with Carter and he's now playing great. Instead of treating Arch like Carter he chose to bench Arch because of some personal grudge and GW woud prefer the Skins suffer because of it. These implications that you make, that the coaching staff chooses to play players that make the team worse, simply baffle me.

Actually, I've read that Springs had diva problems during the end of his stay in Seattle, as for Smoot and Pierce, I have no idea what you're talking about. Lavar is a whiner. He disagreed with past Skins coaching staffs and held a grudge against the current staff talking smack about the Skins even as a Giant.

GW lost the team as a head coach, he didn't lose the defense as a defensive coordinator. The defense fell apart when they lost talent just like this current team. They say winning cures all chemistry issues and I think that's the case with GWs defenses because of the amount of intensity he brings: a lot of highs and lows.

Originally Posted by CNYSkinFan
Sure but that was arch before the season, Springs as well. As you know I gave him the benefit of the doubt with Pierce, Smoot, Clark....Lavar I was definitely against but never blamed GW (lindsey but not GW). But now guys like Springs and Arch are out there unhappy. Springs has never been a problem player...Arch was known ffor his workman type attitude and quiet, humble demeanor.


Springs supposedly had a diva complex towards the end of stay in Seattle and Arch, while never having problems never once had to change defensive systems. Also, you can choose to judge them against themselves or you can judge them against leaders like Daniels, Wynn, or MW, or Griffin who says he wants the rat gone.

[Meatsnack]

The trend is definitely that players get in the dog house and can't get out. Then they spew. Arch is not a whiner by nature judging by the many years in the league he has already put in. Whether he deserved to be benched isn't really open to question. Why you would sit a guy with his kind of cap number and not try to use him at least situationally to get some value out of him baffles me. Especially vs. teams that just can't pass (e.g. Atlanta) but who kill people on the ground, you would think a guy who can tackle and support the run as well as Arch would figure somewhere. GW isn't responsible for Arch being a liability in coverage. But he is responsible for knowing that he is a liability in coverage and putting him in a position to succeed. I don't think anyone can seriously argue that Arch isn't capable of contributing in some capacity to the defense (especially as far in the cellar as it dwells). With that in hand, it is clear that GW isn't acting in the teams best interests in this case. Even if Arch stinks on ice in every facet of the game, staying on good terms with the man makes any kind of negotiations easier later on. This whole mess has been very poorly managed. Even the asian hookers have done a poor job.

[Emmanouel8]

It really doesn't matter want either side is saying IMO. The FO scouted and appraised Archuleta inapproriately. All this meat they're trying to add to the story doesn't hide the bone's of the matter to me. Get a legit GM and finish the story!

[Skinzlover223]

If Arch wants to know what the problem is look at the Colts Video tape Manning had him all turned around and messed up

[Keino]

Grimm was made Asst. Head Coach/Offensive Line two years ago to keep us from hiring him as o-line coach. He apparently is Cowhers leftenant. I would have Russ back in a heartbeat. Cowher would need a GM. for one thing...


Yes, another reason to Hate Marty Schottenheimer. He fired Russ Grimm..........

[gibbs4pres]

What no love for Arch guys...lol. I can see both sides of the argument but no relationship works without open lines of communication, that's the part that concerns me. That and what did GW see in Arch that he just had to have the guy? Knowing his limitations in coverage you have to figure GW was just plain wrong, or that the losses of both Prileaou and Springs for extensive periods wrecked his entire scheme leaving Arch overmatched and overpaid.

This might be the smartest post yet about this.

I've read a few places here that Gibbs is taking back some of the decision making that he was allowing the other coaches to make. I personally think that GW is the blame of our VERY POOR defensive play. Gibbs coaches to his players strengths. I'm not sure GW can do the same.

[Skinz4lyfe]

The trend is definitely that players get in the dog house and can't get out. Then they spew. Arch is not a whiner by nature judging by the many years in the league he has already put in. Whether he deserved to be benched isn't really open to question. Why you would sit a guy with his kind of cap number and not try to use him at least situationally to get some value out of him baffles me. Especially vs. teams that just can't pass (e.g. Atlanta) but who kill people on the ground, you would think a guy who can tackle and support the run as well as Arch would figure somewhere. GW isn't responsible for Arch being a liability in coverage. But he is responsible for knowing that he is a liability in coverage and putting him in a position to succeed. I don't think anyone can seriously argue that Arch isn't capable of contributing in some capacity to the defense (especially as far in the cellar as it dwells). With that in hand, it is clear that GW isn't acting in the teams best interests in this case. Even if Arch stinks on ice in every facet of the game, staying on good terms with the man makes any kind of negotiations easier later on. This whole mess has been very poorly managed. Even the asian hookers have done a poor job.

:goodpost: That is why I say it ultimately falls on Williams and his staff! Because of the salary cap involved we have to find a way to make it work. We were lucky to get out of the Arrington cap mess without much of a hit. I'd be surprised to see it happen again. I'm officially on the "You better find a way to keep Arch and make it work" bandwagon!

[3644Skins]

Chalk this up to another stupid, mindboggling decision by the Redskins. We recruit this guy, telling him he'll be blitzing and playing the line of scrimmage and blah blah blah, then we stick him in coverage; ultimately benching him because our secondary is terrible. Meanwhile, Carlos Rogers is free to drop as many INTs as he wishes. And to top it off, we cut off all communication with the guy like he has the plague. If I'm a potential free agent, this situation plays a part in my decision-making on whether or not to sign with the Redskins.

Maybe Arch can double-up his insane workouts and bulk up to become a linebacker. Lord knows we need help there. But I'm sure we'll cut him, take a cap hit, and he'll sign with Chicago and play well for them.

You got it right here, you know it's going to happen while we sit and continue to be over the cap each year. How come Carter was never benched? Lloyd? Rogers!!!! He's been one of the worst CB's in the NFL this year, not just the Redskins! Arch has a right to be pissed, if GW and this coaching staff is so freaking brilliant than they should have found a way to make him successful. Isn't GW the master of plugging in no names and making the play well? So you telling me he couldn't take Arch and put him some where he could make plays? I believe Archuleta, name one player in our secondary that played at a high level this year? Hell, name one player that played at a mediocre level this season???????

[3644Skins]

Also agreed, but I think that some people are willing to believe anything said about the coaches and FO because they want to demonize them.

That's true but you can look at that from both sides, some people believe every thing the coaches say when they lie just the same.

[BurgundyNGold]

You got it right here, you know it's going to happen while we sit and continue to be over the cap each year. How come Carter was never benched? Lloyd? Rogers!!!! He's been one of the worst CB's in the NFL this year, not just the Redskins! Arch has a right to be pissed, if GW and this coaching staff is so freaking brilliant than they should have found a way to make him successful. Isn't GW the master of plugging in no names and making the play well? So you telling me he couldn't take Arch and put him some where he could make plays? I believe Archuleta, name one player in our secondary that played at a high level this year? Hell, name one player that played at a mediocre level this season???????
To be fair, they gave AA half the season as the uncontested started and he was being victimized week after week after week. It had gotten to the point that attacking AA was the first and last thing that teams did. He also didn't get ANY better at all. GW should not have gotten AA to begin with but he did the right thing by relieving hiim as a starter. I would like to see AA on the field in certain situations still, but maybe he had a similar reaction to GW when he was pulled as he did in this article? Badmouthing your coach usually doesn't equate to more playing time.

Unless, of course, you're TO and Jerry Jones is your owner. Since TO called out the OC after Dallass' embarassment against the Iggles, I fully expect him to get 100 yards and 2 TDs this week as the OC tries to placate the delicate genius. :rolleyes:

[3644Skins]

To be fair, they gave AA half the season as the uncontested started and he was being victimized week after week after week. It had gotten to the point that attacking AA was the first and last thing that teams did. He also didn't get ANY better at all. GW should not have gotten AA to begin with but he did the right thing by relieving hiim as a starter. I would like to see AA on the field in certain situations still, but maybe he had a similar reaction to GW when he was pulled as he did in this article? Badmouthing your coach usually doesn't equate to more playing time.

Unless, of course, you're TO and Jerry Jones is your owner. Since TO called out the OC after Dallass' embarassment against the Iggles, I fully expect him to get 100 yards and 2 TDs this week as the OC tries to placate the delicate genius. :rolleyes:

Ha ha...yeah the did give him some time but I feel like you do, he should have been on the field in certain situations. He was at least a sure tackler most of the time. I'm pretty sure his comments effectively put an end to his playing days with the Skins.

[akhhorus]

That's true but you can look at that from both sides, some people believe every thing the coaches say when they lie just the same.

An accusation of lying doesn't mean they did or they are. Its hard to take the word of a player who was benched seriously.

[joethefan]

I'm getting a little concerned about this..it seems like GW, although a good coach, fails to find and make the scheme work to players stregnths. That to me is an issue...We've watched the same scheme slowly get eaten up over three years. We watched Gregg bring in Rogers, who is not a cover corner, but plays better run support. Now my point is if you have good Lb's and dlinemen, you don't need to be that great in run support at corner some corners hate run support why because they are their to cover.

Now why is it that everytime their is a personal issue going on, on OUR TEAM it's someone on Defense.....everytime we lose someone that can help us, it's someone on defense. That is a trend that we are not paying attention to.

Not sure if that concerns you but that concerns me. I feel that now that GW has been knocked off of his high horse, now he can make some things happen.

Yes players have to make plays, but just like the offensive redzone playcalling was horrible this year, why can't the coaches take the heat for not making sure guys are in positions to make plays. Some players didn't ask to come here, they were sought out to come here to do a job that they did well somehere else, not to be an experiment. For example if I have a drivers licsence and drive for a cab company and one day you ask me to drive the company tow truck and go tow other cabs, cause someone didn't come to work, you're gonna have aproblem on your hands. Good coaches put players in positions where they can be successful, but if you push a player in a situation that he's not comfortable with, don't throw him under the bus after he doesn't perform, YOU KNEW WHAT YOU HAD .and since you sought him, YOU FIND A WAY to incorporate him in...remember you went and got him...but if you want to look like a jackass then ok...It wasnt like the defense did any better with him out? did they....we are still ranked 30 right?....

[skinsfan-ny]

:goodpost: That is why I say it ultimately falls on Williams and his staff! Because of the salary cap involved we have to find a way to make it work. We were lucky to get out of the Arrington cap mess without much of a hit. I'd be surprised to see it happen again. I'm officially on the "You better find a way to keep Arch and make it work" bandwagon!

If a player is really that bad then we should address it accordingly and not play them (make it work) just because their high price tag. I don't think arch is that bad compared to who we have that he could not have contributed. He is definitely a liability in coverage but there should have been some situations that we could have used him in effectively. It's not like anyone is having an all pro year in the secondary which would warrant no playing time for arch.

[HollywoodKolt]

I've always believed the truly great coaches find ways to get the most out of their players. Until this year I had believed this about Gregg Williams. His first year in DC he had one of the best defenses in the league with out a legitimate pass rushing threat on the defensive line. He found players who could contribute at LB when more reknown ones (Arrington, Barrow) were hurt. He helped Antonio Pierce have what sould have been a pro bowl year and let Lemar Marshall become more than a special teamer.

Then he lets Pierce and Smoot, who might not have fit the all mighty system but was played well and played hurt. But still he foudn ways to make it work. But this year I've lost a lot of faith in him.

No Gregg Williams hasn't missed any tackles this year or blown any coverages, but Archuleta is a perfect example of what he's done wrong. Arch might not be the best cover guy in the world, but he can tackle and he can rush the passer and stop the run. So where do we see archuleta all season? In deep coverage. Why? That's just dumb. I might not know as much about exotic blitzes and coverages as Gregg Williams does, but I know that he need to put your guys in position to succeed. That never happened for arch. Instead of complaining that people have figured otu his cover 2 why don't you find a way to use the guy you thought we needed!

Not talking to one of your players for almost two months no matter how poorly you think he's played this season is just being a bad coach and a worse person.

I don't blame archuletta because he didn't really rip the coaching staff that much. In fact I commend him for keeping things in house this year, and I don't think he was the unnamed player because he just doesn't strike me as that kind of guy.

[hail2skins]

There's fault on both sides. I believe there's more fault on the coach's side than on AA's. Yes, he didn't play well and wasn't prepared to step in as early as he did. Is it his fault he wasn't prepared to play in coverages when the team wanted to use him differently? Yeah, they knew he couldn't cover but they also had him listed 2nd on the depth chart since he filled in behind Prioleau. He was at a disadvantage from the beginning.

Yeah, he should have earned that huge contract but whose fault is it to give to him. Making him the highest paid at the position (at that time) signaled that he could play the position whether it was in coverage or to blitz. He was effective against the run when he played but ineffective when it came to coverage. Our opponents knew this and took advantage of it. It seems the coaches didn't and adjusted too late.

So, we bench a guy because he couldn't cover and we knew he couldn't cover when we signed him. We put him in a position where he has to cover and we wonder why teams got the results they did. Yeah, he has a huge contract but who wouldn't have accepted it? He didn't force them to give him that amount, that's what they offered him and it's based on a guy they wanted to blitz not play coverage. Whose fault is that?

[joethefan]

An accusation of lying doesn't mean they did or they are. Its hard to take the word of a player who was benched seriously.

True but it's also hard to take words from people who say for example on offense in preseason "Oh we're ok, we just don't wanna show anything to other teams yet" Only to find that the playcalling was up and down all season and towards the beginning of the season it looked like no one on offnese was on the same page....

Your point is well taken but, I think their have been some false statements and some things that have not been cleared up to us as fans, on all accounts. Its almost like you have to assume when it comes to them. Not just from players...Did we ever hear from gregg as to why rocky hasn't played all year to only see that he made 8 tackles last week? So what I'm saying is that everything that everyone says over there is questionable to a certain degree.... It's hard to beleive any thing anymore..cause many time this year my eyes didn't exactly match with what I heard or read.

[redwolf1218]

Yes, another reason to Hate Marty Schottenheimer. He fired Russ Grimm..........
one of his first moves when he got here...got rid of Russ Grimm. he also canned another guy i really liked, Larry Centers...i would love it if they could find a way to get Grimm back but i dont see how.

as far as Arch, most of these posts are about him being exploited in coverage, and not being used much for blitzing. he did have a lot of tackles, undoubtedly his strength. i think everyone knew coming in that his strength was tackling and he excelled at that. he was on pace to get well over 100 tackles. he should not have been repeatedly stuck one-on-one with 6'-5 tightends down the middle.

i think he would have done better used as a linebacker in Holdman's spot. safeties do have to cover from time to time, and he seems entirely unable to do that. i dont see how that's his fault when everyone around the league and the fanbase seemed to know that ahead of time. he was supposedly given a promise of blitzing, tackling and attacking, which he probably would have been good at. to expose him in coverage and then bench him for being bad at it seems ridiculous.

[akhhorus]

True but it's also hard to take words from people who say for example on offense in preseason "Oh we're ok, we just don't wanna show anything to other teams yet" Only to find that the playcalling was up and down all season and towards the beginning of the season it looked like no one on offnese was on the same page....

Thats not fair to drag in Saunders as "proof" in a defensive coaches issue.

Your point is well taken but, I think their have been some false statements and some things that have not been cleared up to us as fans, on all accounts. Its almost like you have to assume when it comes to them. Not just from players...Did we ever hear from gregg as to why rocky hasn't played all year to only see that he made 8 tackles last week? So what I'm saying is that everything that everyone says over there is questionable to a certain degree.... It's hard to beleive any thing anymore..cause many time this year my eyes didn't exactly match with what I heard or read.

So...because Williams wouldn't play Rocky, he has to be lying to Arch? Huh? We don't know why Rocky didn't play. The only glimmer of indication from PFW was that Rocky wasn't picking up the defense well.

[joethefan]

There's fault on both sides. I believe there's more fault on the coach's side than on AA's. Yes, he didn't play well and wasn't prepared to step in as early as he did. Is it his fault he wasn't prepared to play in coverages when the team wanted to use him differently? Yeah, they knew he couldn't cover but they also had him listed 2nd on the depth chart since he filled in behind Prioleau. He was at a disadvantage from the beginning.

Yeah, he should have earned that huge contract but whose fault is it to give to him. Making him the highest paid at the position (at that time) signaled that he could play the position whether it was in coverage or to blitz. He was effective against the run when he played but ineffective when it came to coverage. Our opponents knew this and took advantage of it. It seems the coaches didn't and adjusted too late.

So, we bench a guy because he couldn't cover and we knew he couldn't cover when we signed him. We put him in a position where he has to cover and we wonder why teams got the results they did. Yeah, he has a huge contract but who wouldn't have accepted it? He didn't force them to give him that amount, that's what they offered him and it's based on a guy they wanted to blitz not play coverage. Whose fault is that?

WOW completely said.....you need to write a book...:lol1:

[BurgundyNGold]

I'm getting a little concerned about this..it seems like GW, although a good coach, fails to find and make the scheme work to players stregnths. That to me is an issue...We've watched the same scheme slowly get eaten up over three years. We watched Gregg bring in Rogers, who is not a cover corner, but plays better run support. Now my point is if you have good Lb's and dlinemen, you don't need to be that great in run support at corner some corners hate run support why because they are their to cover.

Now why is it that everytime their is a personal issue going on, on OUR TEAM it's someone on Defense.....everytime we lose someone that can help us, it's someone on defense. That is a trend that we are not paying attention to.

Not sure if that concerns you but that concerns me. I feel that now that GW has been knocked off of his high horse, now he can make some things happen.

Yes players have to make plays, but just like the offensive redzone playcalling was horrible this year, why can't the coaches take the heat for not making sure guys are in positions to make plays. Some players didn't ask to come here, they were sought out to come here to do a job that they did well somehere else, not to be an experiment. For example if I have a drivers licsence and drive for a cab company and one day you ask me to drive the company tow truck and go tow other cabs, cause someone didn't come to work, you're gonna have aproblem on your hands. Good coaches put players in positions where they can be successful, but if you push a player in a situation that he's not comfortable with, don't throw him under the bus after he doesn't perform, YOU KNEW WHAT YOU HAD .and since you sought him, YOU FIND A WAY to incorporate him in...remember you went and got him...but if you want to look like a jackass then ok...It wasnt like the defense did any better with him out? did they....we are still ranked 30 right?....
Really good points, JTF. I, too, am of the opinion that the best coaches mold the system to their talent and then, over time, change the talent to match the goals of the system. What has disappointed me most in the 3 years of GW is that he has all the flexibility of a statue and the reaction time of a brick wall. To a lesser extent, I can say the same about Saunders but at least he FINALLY started running the ball and playing to the strengths of the offense... even though he made the change to his game plans a bit too late for this season.

If GW was a true "genius" -- a word that is thrown around a little too lightly over at Redskins Park for my tastes -- he would have the intellect and foresight to alter the systems to cover up the holes in midseason. He shouldn't need to watch gamefilm for 3 months to see what's going on and then maybe, MAYBE devise a scheme to counteract what an offense is doing.

[BIGSEF3]

An accusation of lying doesn't mean they did or they are. Its hard to take the word of a player who was benched seriously.

Arch himself has said that he never said the coaches lied and that was taken out of context. Arch says he was referring to what he will probably be told on his exit interview. Arch also said Gibbs DID have a sit down with him and tried to encourage him and he respected Gibbs for that, but that Williams never said a word to him.

I would post the link to the washington post article where that is mentioned, but im sure someone else has posted the link somewhere and I always get bashed for reposting. Anyway, the more i read about all this, the more I become anti-Williams. I think at this point, there is ZERO chance Danny makes GW HC when Gibbs retires.

[whitskins]

This is kind of funny. A couple months ago Archuleta was public enemy number one in this fanbase, now he gets benched and looks like an abandoned puppy on the sidelines and it's all Williams' fault all of the sudden. I thought the bench was where almost everyone on this site wanted the guy from the get go.

And I don't know how realistic it is to just blindly say "the coaches need to play to his strengths and find a way to use him." Easier said than done. This defensive unit simply does not have enough pure talent to allow the coaches to mask Archuleta's flaws and play solely to his strengths. They have no pass rush, so the DBs are constantly hung out to dry on every play. The common response is to just put Arch in on running downs. They tried doing that against Dallas, the game before Arch was completely cut off from the field. The Cowboys ran a no huddle every time his package was called so they could call a pass play on the next down and target him for an easy first.

The guy was a complete liability in coverage. He's also a defensive back. You can't mask being completely unable to cover a tight end when that is a huge freaking part of your darn job. If Arch didn't know the scheme well enough or didn't get enough time to get comfortable in GW's defense then maybe he should have spent some more time at Redskins Park this offseason instead of doing one fingered push ups in Arizona with his trainer.

I don't really care what they do with the guy this offseason. If the bad blood is too deep then cut him, they have no other choice. If they can actually remedy the main reason why this defense sucks, the pathetic pass rush, then maybe they can bring in the talent needed to allow Arch to become a decent player again. But signing him in the first place was the criticial mistake and subsequently benching him was simply the only possible remedy to his poor play. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but it's just kind of funny how two months ago this guy was as hated as any Redskin in recent memory, and now it's the coaches' fault why he can't play.

[PennSkinsFan]

I've always believed the truly great coaches find ways to get the most out of their players. Until this year I had believed this about Gregg Williams. His first year in DC he had one of the best defenses in the league with out a legitimate pass rushing threat on the defensive line. He found players who could contribute at LB when more reknown ones (Arrington, Barrow) were hurt. He helped Antonio Pierce have what sould have been a pro bowl year and let Lemar Marshall become more than a special teamer.

Then he lets Pierce and Smoot, who might not have fit the all mighty system but was played well and played hurt. But still he foudn ways to make it work. But this year I've lost a lot of faith in him.

No Gregg Williams hasn't missed any tackles this year or blown any coverages, but Archuleta is a perfect example of what he's done wrong. Arch might not be the best cover guy in the world, but he can tackle and he can rush the passer and stop the run. So where do we see archuleta all season? In deep coverage. Why? That's just dumb. I might not know as much about exotic blitzes and coverages as Gregg Williams does, but I know that he need to put your guys in position to succeed. That never happened for arch. Instead of complaining that people have figured otu his cover 2 why don't you find a way to use the guy you thought we needed!

Not talking to one of your players for almost two months no matter how poorly you think he's played this season is just being a bad coach and a worse person.

I don't blame archuletta because he didn't really rip the coaching staff that much. In fact I commend him for keeping things in house this year, and I don't think he was the unnamed player because he just doesn't strike me as that kind of guy.

I agree. GW has done fairly little to make any kind of adjustments. His defense is greatly different when Shawn Springs is not in the game. This tells me without Springs, GW is baffled what game plan to use. Problems on defense in 2006 that GW failed to fix, adjust, or whatever:

1. Lemar Marshall has dropped off. Why? What is differenmt? Why have we failed to get him back on track?

2. Carlos Rogers has digressed in his second year. This is simply not defensible or excusable. The last thing we need is Rogers getting into bad habits. This may be a position coach issue, which we have already had this argument and I blame Grey more than Jackson, considering pass defense has collapsed in Grey's first yeat here. Ultimately, this is GW defense and it all falls directly onto him.

3. Sean taylor. Thinking that he is the best damn coach in the worl, that type of arrgance by GW that he can simply fit anyone in to any role and make it work is not even close to reality. We see how much this defense misses Ryan Clark and how much Sean Taylor misses Ryan Clark. Arch was worth it eh GW? Just anothe rplayer we can plug in right?


Just my opinion, take it for what it is worth, cirticize me if you wish, but there is a high arrogance that protrudes with this coaching staff and until they realize that they are not the ONE and ONLY BEST coaching staff around, then and only then can we truly coach players up. My solution...back to the basics. JG needs to assume full control again, GW needs to get his coaches under control, under his control, and quit letting all coaches have independence over their little fiefdoms.

Coaching Changes I would like to see:

Offensively: Don Breaux and Jack Burns serve no purpose here. Al Saunders has to stay simply because JC must continue to progress and he can under AS. Return to the run attack first offense and start there. Buges is fine, he has this Line playing superb football. Byner is the star of this staff and has our RBs playing top quality football. Hixon is unable to be judged becasue he has alwasy had veterans and has not really had to develop any.

Defensively: Jackson or Grey must go. My preference, start over and can both of them. Bring someone in UNCONNECTED to the previous Gibbs Era or UNCONNECTED to GW. Dale Lindsey needs to be let go. Our LBers need a fresh approach instead of a dictatorial nightmare that has led to digression. Greg Blache is fine. He has gotten a little more out of a DL that is simply not very good.

[BurgundyNGold]

There's fault on both sides. I believe there's more fault on the coach's side than on AA's. Yes, he didn't play well and wasn't prepared to step in as early as he did. Is it his fault he wasn't prepared to play in coverages when the team wanted to use him differently? Yeah, they knew he couldn't cover but they also had him listed 2nd on the depth chart since he filled in behind Prioleau. He was at a disadvantage from the beginning.

Yeah, he should have earned that huge contract but whose fault is it to give to him. Making him the highest paid at the position (at that time) signaled that he could play the position whether it was in coverage or to blitz. He was effective against the run when he played but ineffective when it came to coverage. Our opponents knew this and took advantage of it. It seems the coaches didn't and adjusted too late.

So, we bench a guy because he couldn't cover and we knew he couldn't cover when we signed him. We put him in a position where he has to cover and we wonder why teams got the results they did. Yeah, he has a huge contract but who wouldn't have accepted it? He didn't force them to give him that amount, that's what they offered him and it's based on a guy they wanted to blitz not play coverage. Whose fault is that?
I think this post best sums up my take on all of this AA an GW business.

[BIGSEF3]

If GW was a true "genius" -- a word that is thrown around a little too lightly over at Redskins Park for my tastes -- he would have the intellect and foresight to alter the systems to cover up the holes in midseason. He shouldn't need to watch gamefilm for 3 months to see what's going on and then maybe, MAYBE devise a scheme to counteract what an offense is doing.

Well when the coach describes everyone as "supersmart," your assistant coaches had better be "geniuses," otherwise you give the impression your players are smarter than your coaches. I'd kill to hear Gibbs describe someone as being "dumb as a brick," just once.

[akhhorus]

Arch himself has said that he never said the coaches lied and that was taken out of context. Arch says he was referring to what he will probably be told on his exit interview. Arch also said Gibbs DID have a sit down with him and tried to encourage him and he respected Gibbs for that, but that Williams never said a word to him.

I would post the link to the washington post article where that is mentioned, but im sure someone else has posted the link somewhere and I always get bashed for reposting. Anyway, the more i read about all this, the more I become anti-Williams. I think at this point, there is ZERO chance Danny makes GW HC when Gibbs retires.

Then Arch destroys his credibility in my eyes if he's talking about hypothetical lying to him in the future and this is a non-issue we've made a mountain out of a molehill. The post article reforges his comments as Arch being lonely lol.

[BurgundyNGold]

Well when the coach describes everyone as "supersmart," your assistant coaches had better be "geniuses," otherwise you give the impression your players are smarter than your coaches. I'd kill to hear Gibbs describe someone as being "dumb as a brick," just once.
:lol1:

Yeah, but even then he'd ba a "Redskin's type guy" or he'd "fight his guts out on ev'ry play", lol.

[hail2skins]

This is kind of funny. A couple months ago Archuleta was public enemy number one in this fanbase, now he gets benched and looks like an abandoned puppy on the sidelines and it's all Williams' fault all of the sudden. I thought the bench was where almost everyone on this site wanted the guy from the get go.

And I don't know how realistic it is to just blindly say "the coaches need to play to his strengths and find a way to use him." Easier said than done. This defensive unit simply does not have enough pure talent to allow the coaches to mask Archuleta's flaws and play solely to his strengths. They have no pass rush, so the DBs are constantly hung out to dry on every play. The common response is to just put Arch in on running downs. They tried doing that against Dallas, the game before Arch was completely cut off from the field. The Cowboys ran a no huddle every time his package was called so they could call a pass play on the next down and target him for an easy first.

The guy was a complete liability in coverage. He's also a defensive back. You can't mask being completely unable to cover a tight end when that is a huge freaking part of your darn job. If Arch didn't know the scheme well enough or didn't get enough time to get comfortable in GW's defense then maybe he should have spent some more time at Redskins Park this offseason instead of doing one fingered push ups in Arizona with his trainer.

I don't really care what they do with the guy this offseason. If the bad blood is too deep then cut him, they have no other choice. If they can actually remedy the main reason why this defense sucks, the pathetic pass rush, then maybe they can bring in the talent needed to allow Arch to become a decent player again. But signing him in the first place was the criticial mistake and subsequently benching him was simply the only possible remedy to his poor play. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but it's just kind of funny how two months ago this guy was as hated as any Redskin in recent memory, and now it's the coaches' fault why he can't play.The only problem is that everyone knew he was a liability in coverage. Also, Prioleau was the starter and saw most of the time in practice. GW has packages but Prioleau going down messed those up.

[akhhorus]

This is kind of funny. A couple months ago Archuleta was public enemy number one in this fanbase, now he gets benched and looks like an abandoned puppy on the sidelines and it's all Williams' fault all of the sudden. I thought the bench was where almost everyone on this site wanted the guy from the get go.

And I don't know how realistic it is to just blindly say "the coaches need to play to his strengths and find a way to use him." Easier said than done. This defensive unit simply does not have enough pure talent to allow the coaches to mask Archuleta's flaws and play solely to his strengths. They have no pass rush, so the DBs are constantly hung out to dry on every play. The common response is to just put Arch in on running downs. They tried doing that against Dallas, the game before Arch was completely cut off from the field. The Cowboys ran a no huddle every time his package was called so they could call a pass play on the next down and target him for an easy first.

The guy was a complete liability in coverage. He's also a defensive back. You can't mask being completely unable to cover a tight end when that is a huge freaking part of your darn job. If Arch didn't know the scheme well enough or didn't get enough time to get comfortable in GW's defense then maybe he should have spent some more time at Redskins Park this offseason instead of doing one fingered push ups in Arizona with his trainer.

I don't really care what they do with the guy this offseason. If the bad blood is too deep then cut him, they have no other choice. If they can actually remedy the main reason why this defense sucks, the pathetic pass rush, then maybe they can bring in the talent needed to allow Arch to become a decent player again. But signing him in the first place was the criticial mistake and subsequently benching him was simply the only possible remedy to his poor play. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but it's just kind of funny how two months ago this guy was as hated as any Redskin in recent memory, and now it's the coaches' fault why he can't play.

Yeah, its funny. I think Arch will get the Lavar Love Hewitt treatment: give back some signing bonus against the cap and we'll cut you.

[hail2skins]

Everyone wants to side with the coaches or AA. Why can't we accept the fact that both sides could be wrong just like in the situation with LA.

[redwolf1218]

i think Lemar Marshall has quietly battled injuries. unfortunately that might be a recurring theme because he's so undersized for the position. taking on guards and fullbacks to get to the play is going to wear him down.

Rogers needs to catch those picks he's always dropping to get respect.

you're right about Taylor, he misses Clark badly. bad move letting him go.

coaching changes: too many cooks in the kitchen. weed it out. the clokc is running down while 4 or 5 different guys discuss what to do next.

[hail2skins]

This thread is about AA folks, let's not change the subject.

[joethefan]

Thats not fair to drag in Saunders as "proof" in a defensive coaches issue.



So...because Williams wouldn't play Rocky, he has to be lying to Arch? Huh? We don't know why Rocky didn't play. The only glimmer of indication from PFW was that Rocky wasn't picking up the defense well.

remember the "it's all of us" comment made my JOE..

No what i'm pointing out is inconsisantcies made by gregg while everything is going downhill, the only way some players learn, is to play them on the field. C'mon at this point...I beleive that the scheme is too much and if that's the case then shorten it so player can get it. Remember YOU WNET AND GOT EM Rocky's another player that we gave part of this years kitchen for, only to find that he starts week 15 and that was because of injury? hmmm? After the offense seemed like they scaled down everything, then and only then did they start to turn things around....hmmm

All i'm saying is that when I look at the entire scope of things, it seems like we lose more players on D the on O...and that makes me begin to raise and eyebrowe at Gregg. That mole remember is or was on the Defense...hmmm

[akhhorus]

Everyone wants to side with the coaches or AA. Why can't we accept the fact that both sides could be wrong just like in the situation with LA.

I agree with this. Both sides screwed up with this situation. However, Arch has no reason to whine and Williams has no reason to act innocent.

[hail2skins]

I agree with this. Both sides screwed up with this situation. However, Arch has no reason to whine and Williams has no reason to act innocent.I think that the fact that Williams hasn't said anything signals guilt. Also don't see what Arch said as whining. Everyone knew this was going to be story at the end of the season. The media went after it.

[hail2skins]

Arch himself has said that he never said the coaches lied and that was taken out of context. Arch says he was referring to what he will probably be told on his exit interview. Arch also said Gibbs DID have a sit down with him and tried to encourage him and he respected Gibbs for that, but that Williams never said a word to him.

I would post the link to the washington post article where that is mentioned, but im sure someone else has posted the link somewhere and I always get bashed for reposting. Anyway, the more i read about all this, the more I become anti-Williams. I think at this point, there is ZERO chance Danny makes GW HC when Gibbs retires.I need the link to these statements because I didn't see them in the article.

[joethefan]

This is kind of funny.
And I don't know how realistic it is to just blindly say "the coaches need to play to his strengths and find a way to use him." Easier said than done. This defensive unit simply does not have enough pure talent to allow the coaches to mask Archuleta's flaws and play solely to his strengths.


Yea bt we deal with Holdmans' crap every week don't we?

[akhhorus]

remember the "it's all of us" comment made my JOE..

No what i'm pointing out is inconsisantcies made by gregg while everything is going downhill, the only way some players learn, is to play them on the field. C'mon at this point...I beleive that the scheme is too much and if that's the case then shorten it so player can get it. Remember YOU WNET AND GOT EM Rocky's another player that we gave part of this years kitchen for, only to find that he starts week 15 and that was because of injury? hmmm? After the offense seemed like they scaled down everything, then and only then did they start to turn things around....hmmm

You don't change the entire scheme for one rookie so he can get on the field(no matter what you gave up for him). The offense needed scaling down for the entire team obviously.

All i'm saying is that when I look at the entire scope of things, it seems like we lose more players on D the on O...and that makes me begin to raise and eyebrowe at Gregg. That mole remember is or was on the Defense...hmmm

What?

[BIGSEF3]

I need the link to these statements because I didn't see them in the article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/28/AR2006122801370.html

Some Highlights:

I talked to Coach Gibbs briefly, and he told me to keep busting my butt and to fight through it, which is fair," Archuleta said. "He pulled me in to try to boost my confidence earlier in the season, which I appreciated."


Archuleta said that published reports in which he accused a member of the organization of having "lied" to him were false, and said such an exchange never took place. The safety said he was speaking hypothetically about the exit interviews that occur annually around the NFL this time of year, where pleasantries are often exchanged but concrete criticism is infrequent.

"I never said that anyone lied to me," Archuleta said. "I have no problem standing behind what I say, but that's not what I said."



The technique the Redskins coaching staff taught to him in pass coverage was vastly different than how he played it in St. Louis, and his relationship with safeties coach Steve Jackson has been strained since early on, sources said.

This last quote is something that interests me. Perhaps Williams is notso much "anti-arch" and is just "supporting Jackson" so Jackson doesnt lose the respect of the other players. With "Deepskin"s previous accusations about Jackson, I wonder whether Gibbs could mend things between Williams and Arch if Jackson were gone and Grey were moved over all the DBs.

[akhhorus]

I need the link to these statements because I didn't see them in the article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/28/AR2006122801370.html

Archuleta said that published reports in which he accused a member of the organization of having "lied" to him were false, and said such an exchange never took place. The safety said he was speaking hypothetically about the exit interviews that occur annually around the NFL this time of year, where pleasantries are often exchanged but concrete criticism is infrequent.

[akhhorus]

Yea bt we deal with Holdmans' crap every week don't we?

Holdman isn't as bad as his position as Arch was at his. Holdman isn't a good player, but he's not the disaster Arch was.

[whitskins]

The only problem is that everyone knew he was a liability in coverage. Also, Prioleau was the starter and saw most of the time in practice. GW has packages but Prioleau going down messed those up.

I agree, which is why I said the critical error was signing the guy in the first place. Obviously that was a huge mistake. What is odd to me now, however, is why Arch is being viewed as a potentially solid contributor who is being wasted on the bench when almost everyone wanted the guy sent to the gallows in the first two months of the season. I just don't agree with the notion that just because the dude looks sympathetic while chewing on his mouth guard on the sidelines, that it's all of the sudden the coaches' fault why he sucks.

If anything is the coaching staff's fault it is that they have passed up legit pass rushers for DBs every single year since they have been here, and it is finally catching up with them. But I don't see how any coach can somehow mask the flaws of a DB who can't cover when their pass rush is about to set all time NFL records for futility in pressuring the quarterback. I blame the coaches for our pathetic 15 sacks this season, not for benching Arch.

[joethefan]

The guy was a complete liability in coverage. He's also a defensive back. You can't mask being completely unable to cover a tight end when that is a huge freaking part of your darn job.


In all actuality, you don't know what they brought him in for...Do you? How do we know that's what they brought him in for? If he's a liablity in coverage, which he is, I find it hard to believe they would bring someone that they know has probems in a particular area then ask him in to cover TE's if they weren't desperate. But to throw him under the bus after you knew what you had, isn't right.

[redwolf1218]

In all actuality, you don't know what they brought him in for...Do you? How do we know that's what they brought him in for? If he's a liablity in coverage, which he is, I find it hard to believe they would bring someone that they know has probems in a particular area then ask him in to cover TE's if they weren't desperate. But to throw him under the bus after you knew what you had, isn't right.
i dont think they really threw him under the bus. they just used him wrong and then benched him without saying anything. i think they sold him on the idea of blitzing and then tried to use him in coverage too much. he was a tackling machine early on. he's still 6th on the team in tackles with 59 depsite not playing defense in a long time.

[joethefan]

Holdman isn't as bad as his position as Arch was at his. Holdman isn't a good player, but he's not the disaster Arch was.

you may be right but isn't holdman a true LB and brought in for that reason...was Arch brought in to cover? there is a difference from brought in and in your second year and you still look like crap, then being thrust into a situation you're still learning right...?

[joethefan]

i dont think they really threw him under the bus. they just used him wrong and then benched him without saying anything. i think they sold him on the idea of blitzing and then tried to use him in coverage too much. he was a tackling machine early on.

yea but why does this situation sound similar to the lavar situation..remember no ones talking to no one..I recall lavar saying that to him as well....Arch is playing only on special teams....didn't lavar play on ST for a while....and if you went out and sought me ... shouldn't you feel you should a least be a man and talk to me if there's somethg I'm not doing correct?....that doesn't seem right does it?

[whitskins]

In all actuality, you don't know what they brought him in for...Do you? How do we know that's what they brought him in for? If he's a liablity in coverage, which he is, I find it hard to believe they would bring someone that they know has probems in a particular area then ask him in to cover TE's if they weren't desperate. But to throw him under the bus after you knew what you had, isn't right.

They brought him here to be a blitzer and run stuffer because they thought their DL could generate a pass rush and stay healthy. They thought their LBs weren't washed up and could execute a blitz with some effectiveness. Yes, they had Arch in coverage because they were desperate, and he failed at doing his job in that regard. So, as a result, he no longer plays. If benching a dude because he simply can't do his job is throwing a guy under the bus, then I wish these coaches would throw more guys under the bus.

What is perceived as an act of injustice towards Archuleta was actually probably the most fair thing that any of the coaches did this season. A guy showed a complete inability to do his job, so he lost it. I wish Holdman or Marshall could be treated just as unfairly as well.

[joethefan]

They brought him here to be a blitzer and run stuffer because they thought their DL could generate a pass rush and stay healthy. They thought their LBs weren't washed up and could execute a blitz with some effectiveness. Yes, they had Arch in coverage because they were desperate, and he failed at doing his job in that regard. So, as a result, he no longer plays. If benching a dude because he simply can't do his job is throwing a guy under the bus, then I wish these coaches would throw more guys under the bus.

What is perceived as an act of injustice towards Archuleta was actually probably the most fair thing that any of the coaches did this season. A guy showed a complete inability to do his job, so he lost it. I wish Holdman or Marshall could be treated just as unfairly as well.

didn't you just say that he was brought in to blitz and play in run support...how did he do in that...I thought he had many tackles in that area...But to bench me after not allowing me to do what I do best, that doesn't seem right. Again, If i were hired to type letters, and did that well, then you ask me to run the mail room for a company with 200 people in it, filling in for someone that's gonna be out for 4 weeks, is it fair to fire me, when I display I can't cut it? That's not waht I was hired for, so in other words it's not what i do best...

[LATrueRedskin]

There's fault on both sides. I believe there's more fault on the coach's side than on AA's. Yes, he didn't play well and wasn't prepared to step in as early as he did. Is it his fault he wasn't prepared to play in coverages when the team wanted to use him differently? Yeah, they knew he couldn't cover but they also had him listed 2nd on the depth chart since he filled in behind Prioleau. He was at a disadvantage from the beginning.

Yeah, he should have earned that huge contract but whose fault is it to give to him. Making him the highest paid at the position (at that time) signaled that he could play the position whether it was in coverage or to blitz. He was effective against the run when he played but ineffective when it came to coverage. Our opponents knew this and took advantage of it. It seems the coaches didn't and adjusted too late.

So, we bench a guy because he couldn't cover and we knew he couldn't cover when we signed him. We put him in a position where he has to cover and we wonder why teams got the results they did. Yeah, he has a huge contract but who wouldn't have accepted it? He didn't force them to give him that amount, that's what they offered him and it's based on a guy they wanted to blitz not play coverage. Whose fault is that?

I agree with this. My big problem is, why is Gregg Williams flat-out lying during media sessions; saying that Arch will get playing time? If you benched him, you benched him. Why lie about it and continually say that he'll play "in some packages" when everybody and my dog knows that isn't true?

Also, why not start the conversion-to-linebacker process early? Say to Arch, "Hey, it's not working out at safety, tiger, but if you begin to put on some weight now and start sitting in on the linebacker meetings, there might be a spot for you at linebacker." That could have happened 7 weeks ago, and Archuleta could have already been half-way to linebacker size, and would have begun to get accustom to the position.

I'm not defending Archuleta or anything. His play was atrocious. But I think he can be salvagable, and we can save that cap hit we'll take when we cut him. Either way, we don't have to cut off all communication with the guy if he doesn't work out for us. That's the part I really don't like in this situation.

[redwolf1218]

yea but why does this situation sound similar to the lavar situation..remember no ones talking to no one..I recall lavar saying that to him as well....Arch is playing only on special teams....didn't lavar play on ST for a while....and if you went out and sought me ... shouldn't you feel you should a least be a man and talk to me if there's somethg I'm not doing correct?....that doesn't seem right does it?
that's a different subject. i was saying they didnt throw him under the bus, but rather they just didnt say anything at all.

maybe they should have come out and said "Adam struggled in coverage so we had to get someone else in there", but everyone knew that. like Arch said, there's no reason for an explanation now, because it's pretty clear already.

edit: i have to believe there is something else going on here though. of course he's bad in coverage, but it seems like there would still be some use for him in run support or blitz packages.

[Meatsnack]

I propose scheming an entire defense around Arch's lack of pass coverage. Using Arch as a red herring, the Red Archuletta or "RA" defense creates a lure so enticing that no QB will be able to resist audibling to the pass. This defense takes tha ball away from the games great backs. At the snap, the formation changes from a 5-2-4 to a 2-2-2-5 in which 4 players other than Archuletta surround Arch's man as he runs for the endzone. I believe this will revolutionize defensive play in the league and that copycats of the "RA" defense will crop up all over in conferences with great backs.

[joethefan]

I'm not defending Archuleta or anything. His play was atrocious. But I think he can be salvagable, and we can save that cap hit we'll take when we cut him. Either way, we don't have to cut off all communication with the guy if he doesn't work out for us. That's the part I really don't like in this situation.

exactly, that's what I mean by throwing him under the bus..can you imagine the temnsion that's over their now, when you don't talk to someone that you know an they know called you, brought you in, signed you benched you and then you go home and see on TV the guy say "Arch will get in there on some packages." Knowing Williams hasn't spoken to you in weeks? That's the stuff I'm talking about... remember his language was the same last year about Lavar.

[whitskins]

didn't you just say that he was brought in to blitz and play in run support...how did he do in that...I thought he had many tackles in that area...But to bench me after not allowing me to do what I do best, that doesn't seem right. Again, If i were hired to type letters, and did that well, then you ask me to run the mail room for a company with 200 people in it, is it fair to fire me, when I disply I can't cut it?

The guy plays safety. It's impossible to trot a safety out on the field and somehow prevent him from having to cover another player on a pass play. They tried to use him only on run downs against Dallas and they got burnt consistently because Dallas would go no huddle and throw at him every time he stepped on the field, including the play that almost lost them the game. Arch has to at least be somewhat decent at covering a tight end in order to earn the right to play. He isn't.

And yes he has a lot of tackles, but that's all they are, just tackles. They weren't big tackles behind the line of scrimmage, they weren't big hits that were creating forced fumbles (which Arch has never been able to do throughout his career.) He had one sack, mostly because he was almost never blitzed, but of course you can't go blitzing your safeties on every play when the other guys can't get within ten feet of the opposing QB.

I don't think Arch was doing much of anything to demand that he should have stayed on the field. He was a solid tackler in the secondary and a horrible cover guy. Vernon Fox has outplayed him since his benching so I have no idea why there is so much to complain about. He has no role on this defense for a variety of reasons, many of which are not his fault, but the two guys that took his place are an improvement, so the bench is where Archuleta belongs as a result.

[danny's stogie]

In all actuality, you don't know what they brought him in for...Do you? How do we know that's what they brought him in for? If he's a liablity in coverage, which he is, I find it hard to believe they would bring someone that they know has probems in a particular area then ask him in to cover TE's if they weren't desperate. But to throw him under the bus after you knew what you had, isn't right.

When did they throw Arch under the bus? We threw him under the bus, they benched him for poor play and rightfully so.

Anyways, as for this whole scheme thing and not making the scheme fit his players: I find all of this hard to fathom. GW has always drafted and signed players that fit his scheme. I don't see why anything changed when they signed Arch. He was supposed to be part of a scheme, that scheme fell apart, Arch failed to adapt, he got benched, and now he's likely gone, end of story.

[joethefan]

I propose scheming an entire defense around Arch's lack of pass coverage. Using Arch as a red herring, the Red Archuletta or "RA" defense creates a lure so enticing that no QB will be able to resist audibling to the pass. This defense takes tha ball away from the games great backs. At the snap, the formation changes from a 5-2-4 to a 2-2-2-5 in which 4 players other than Archuletta surround Arch's man as he runs for the endzone. I believe this will revolutionize defensive play in the league and that copycats of the "RA" defense will crop up all over in conferences with great backs.


that's a great Idea and while we have the 30th ranked defense maybe it'll work...hey and lets make sure we throw in some extra picks to the team that does it the best....:sleeping:

[Meatsnack]

that's a great Idea and while we have the 30th ranked defense maybe it'll work...hey and lets make sure we throw in some extra picks to the team that does it the best....:sleeping:
Just a little joke to lighten up the board, Joe...

[joethefan]

When did they throw Arch under the bus? We threw him under the bus, they benched him for poor play and rightfully so.

Anyways, as for this whole scheme thing and not making the scheme fit his players: I find all of this hard to fathom. GW has always drafted and signed players that fit his scheme. I don't see why anything changed when they signed Arch. He was supposed to be part of a scheme, that scheme fell apart, Arch failed to adapt, he got benched, and now he's likely gone, end of story.

well let me ask you this, did any benchings come after Carlos dropped everything that came his way...NO...thus leading to possible game changing plays, or Holdman being thrown out of the way everytime (remember Tiki to the left Tiki the right" All I'm saying is if your gonna bench a guy for not doing his job, then how many more people on defense would have to be benched cause clearly Gregg had alot more to fix even after he benched Arch. It wan't like it made the Defense better. I know, I know well Joe somebody has got to play...but I tell you this. Arch abscence from the defense wasn't the true reason why we have the 30th ranked defense..is it?

[danny's stogie]

Also, I think part of the fan reaction about this is a byproduct of the Lavar and Ramsey debates of years past. They were fan favorites who clearly in the case of Ramsey couldn't play period and in the case of Lavar wasn't a) worth his contract or b) doing his part in rehab or to learn the defense, or whatever the cause of him not being able too play within the scheme. We the fans created these farcical theories as to why they weren't playing when the proof was in their play. Now, because of the benching and cutting of fan favorites, we have an impression of the coaching staff that they play favorites too when it should be nothing short of obvious that they play whoever most deserves to play.

[danny's stogie]

well let me ask you this, did any benchings come after Carlos dropped everything that came his way...NO...thus leading to possible game changing plays, or Holdman being thrown out of the way everytime (remember Tiki to the left Tiki the right" All I'm saying is if your gonna bench a guy for not doing his job, then how many more people on defense would have to be benched cause clearly Gregg had alot more to fix even after he benched Arch. It wan't like it made the Defense better. I know, I know well Joe somebody has got to play...but I tell you this. Arch abscence from the defense wasn't the true reason why we have the 30th ranked defense..is it?

They all stink, that's for sure, but who the heck would play CB instead of Rogers? Rumph? Holdman? Rocky is pretty green.

[whitskins]

well let me ask you this, did any benchings come after Carlos dropped everything that came his way...NO...thus leading to possible game changing plays, or Holdman being thrown out of the way everytime (remember Tiki to the left Tiki the right" All I'm saying is if your gonna bench a guy for not doing his job, then how many more people on defense would have to be benched cause clearly Gregg had alot more to fix even after he benched Arch. It wan't like it made the Defense better. I know, I know well Joe somebody has got to play...but I tell you this. Arch abscence from the defense wasn't the true reason why we have the 30th ranked defense..is it?

Comparing Archuleta to Carlos makes no sense. Carlos dropped some INTs but hasn't been even close to the liability that Arch was in the passing game. Not even close. And benching Arch for Vernon Fox was an improvement. Who would you bench Carlos for to improve the team? Wright? Jimoh? Rumph? Please...

And it sounds to me like you're saying the coaches should play Arch because other guys on the defense suck, instead of saying the coaches should bench the other guys who suck just like they did with Archuleta. I'm not sure why you're so high up on Arch, but he played horribly and had no role in this defense, so he rides pine now. I only wish the coaches treated players like Holdman, Daniels, and Marshall more like this, however, I don't believe they would have anyone off the bench who could provide any kind of improvement over Marshall, so I can accept that they are stuck with him for now.

[WinnpegSkinsFan]

Everyone wants to side with the coaches or AA. Why can't we accept the fact that both sides could be wrong just like in the situation with LA.

This post and your previous one sum it all up for me - plenty of blame for both sides. Archuleta's play sucked and the coaches used him poorly. One thing he does deserve is to be told up front about why he was benched. I get the sense that no one on the coaching staff has done this. Treat him honestly that's all.

[joethefan]

Also, I think part of the fan reaction about this is a byproduct of the Lavar and Ramsey debates of years past. They were fan favorites who clearly in the case of Ramsey couldn't play period and in the case of Lavar wasn't a) worth his contract or b) doing his part in rehab or to learn the defense, or whatever the cause of him not being able too play within the scheme. We the fans created these farcical theories as to why they weren't playing when the proof was in their play. Now, because of the benching and cutting of fan favorites, we have an impression of the coaching staff that they play favorites too when it should be nothing short of obvious that they play whoever most deserves to play.


As much as it sound like it, I am not a Arch fan...Sean T is may favorite player, but even he comes up short and GW always covers for him. If a guy makes a mistake admit it, but don't cover for him all the time... Gregg always says "I don't want Sean to Slow down", but it seems he has done alot of slowing down, this year out of the last 3. I just want a player treated fairly. and in this case and others I don't see how he's been treated fairly givin our current defensive position.

[danny's stogie]

This post and your previous one sum it all up for me - plenty of blame for both sides. Archuleta's play sucked and the coaches used him poorly. One thing he does deserve is to be told up front about why he was benched. I get the sense that no one on the coaching staff has done this. Treat him honestly that's all.

What do they tell him about being benched? What do you say to Collins when he doesn't win the starting QB job? "Sorry Todd, you see, you pretty much suck and aren't nearly as good Brunell or Campbell. Tough luck, try again next year."

[gibbs4pres]

Also, I think part of the fan reaction about this is a byproduct of the Lavar and Ramsey debates of years past. They were fan favorites who clearly in the case of Ramsey couldn't play period and in the case of Lavar wasn't a) worth his contract or b) doing his part in rehab or to learn the defense, or whatever the cause of him not being able too play within the scheme. We the fans created these farcical theories as to why they weren't playing when the proof was in their play. Now, because of the benching and cutting of fan favorites, we have an impression of the coaching staff that they play favorites too when it should be nothing short of obvious that they play whoever most deserves to play.

Arch is nowhere near a fan favorite. Look at Joethefans post he states it quite nicely. GW IMHO doesn't care about a player, period. There are PLENTY of screw-ups all year for this D. There have been problems in the staff and players on that side of the ball all year. Do you hear the same from the Offense? Our Defense is AWFUL to say it nicely! Not one shining point IMO. Can we say anyone has progressed this year on defense?

[danny's stogie]

As much as it sound like it, I am not a Arch fan...Sean T is may favorite player, but even he comes up short and GW always covers for him. If a guy makes a mistake admit it, but don't cover for him all the time... Gregg always says "I don't want Sean to Slow down", but it seems he has done alot of slowing down, this year out of the last 3. I just want a player treated fairly. and in this case and others I don't see how he's been treated fairly givin our current defensive position.

Joe Gibbs has always taken the blame and never called out players publicly. Why would this change now?

[joethefan]

Comparing Archuleta to Carlos makes no sense. Carlos dropped some INTs but hasn't been even close to the liability that Arch was in the passing game. Not even close. And benching Arch for Vernon Fox was an improvement. Who would you bench Carlos for to improve the team? Wright? Jimoh? Rumph? Please...

And it sounds to me like you're saying the coaches should play Arch because other guys on the defense suck, instead of saying the coaches should bench the other guys who suck just like they did with Archuleta. I'm not sure why you're so high up on Arch, but he played horribly and had no role in this defense, so he rides pine now. I only wish the coaches treated players like Holdman, Daniels, and Marshall more like this, however, I don't believe they would have anyone off the bench who could provide any kind of improvement over Marshall, so I can accept that they are stuck with him for now.
I'm not high on arch as it seems, I'm just saying that benching one player has not fixed anything on our defense..it just gives me and indication that having accessto money and not having a GM doesn't mix...

[danny's stogie]

Arch is nowhere near a fan favorite. Look at Joethefans post he states it quite nicely. GW IMHO doesn't care about a player, period. There are PLENTY of screw-ups all year for this D. There have been problems in the staff and players on that side of the ball all year. Do you hear the same from the Offense? Our Defense is AWFUL to say it nicely! Not one shining point IMO. Can we say anyone has progressed this year on defense?

Did I ever say Arch was a fan favorite? I said that our reaction to two fan favorites has caused us to mistrust the coaching staff for some odd reason.

[joethefan]

Joe Gibbs has always taken the blame and never called out players publicly. Why would this change now?

I don't want to hear from Joe cause that speech is old, I wanna hear from gregg about these packages that he's talked about that this player is in, that he never uses while having the 30th ranked defense....

[WinnpegSkinsFan]

What do they tell him about being benched? What do you say to Collins when he doesn't win the starting QB job? "Sorry Todd, you see, you pretty much suck and aren't nearly as good Brunell or Campbell. Tough luck, try again next year."

How about: "Adam your play has not met our expectations and we are going to insert another safety into the starting lineup." From the article I gather that no one has even said this to him.

[danny's stogie]

How about: "Adam your play has not met our expectations and we are going to insert another safety into the starting lineup." From the article I gather that no one has even said this to him.

If someone needs to explicitly say this to Arch I think he might be better off in the special olympics rather than in the NFL.

[gibbs4pres]

Did I ever say Arch was a fan favorite? I said that our reaction to two fan favorites has caused us to mistrust the coaching staff for some odd reason.

Read it wrong, sorry.

Agreed there isn't much trust with GW right now. I don't see the same on Offense though. The trust would be there if they were getting better, but they're not. I think the only way for GW to get the trust of the fans back is to improve. Unfortunately that can't be changed until next season. Even if we shut out the Giants there will still be that mistrust throughout the off-season.

[joethefan]

If someone needs to explicitly say this to Arch I think he might be better off in the special olympics rather than in the NFL.

No, but maybe "hey, wev'e noticed you're having problems in this area so until you can display that you can handle it, we'll have to start someone else...Now we know that won't change our position on why we brought you here, we'll still use you there but we gotta limit your coverage time on the field. There are some things that you do well and somethings that you don't do so well, i'll try my best to get you in a position where you can do well".....

[WinnpegSkinsFan]

If someone needs to explicitly say this to Arch I think he might be better off in the special olympics rather than in the NFL.

Frankly if i found out that I lost my starting job by looking at a lineup card I'd be ticked. Like he said in the article - give him the bad news straight.

Don't assume I'm on AA's side - he deserved to lose his starting job. He just deserves an explanation that's all.

Look, this was a bad signing from the start. I was very uncomfortable with the Clark repalced by AA situation. The FO/coaching staff needs to be up front with players if they aren't playing. The special olympics comment was completely unnecessary.

[gibbs4pres]

If someone needs to explicitly say this to Arch I think he might be better off in the special olympics rather than in the NFL.

:lol1:I think that maybe a "Arch you know you suck at coverage. QBs are going to throw your way everytime! Expect it and take a page from D. Green and sucker them into the int."

Thinking about it..... wouldn't that make teams one dimentional when Arch was in. Great coaching staffs should be able to counter anything.

[WinnpegSkinsFan]

No, but maybe "hey, wev'e noticed you're having problems in this area so until you can display that you can handle it, we'll have to start someone else...Now we know that won't change our position on why we brought you here, we'll still use you there but we gotta limit your coverage time on the field. Their some things that you do well and somethings that you don't do so well, i'll try my best to get you in a position where you can do well".....


Yep - this is how they should have handled it.

[joethefan]

Frankly if i found out that I lost my starting job by looking at a lineup card I'd be ticked. Like he said in the article - give him the bad news straight.

Don't assume I'm on AA's side - he deserved to lose his starting job. He just deserves an explanation that's all.

Look, this was a bad signing from the start. I was very uncomfortable with the Clark repalced by AA situation. The FO/coaching staff needs to be up front with players if they aren't playing. The special olympics comment was completely unnecessary.

I agree I'm not disputing he played badd but be a man and tell me to my face...we;re supposed to be professionals here...that's high school stuff...checking the board to see if your name is on it.....that's whack...

[danny's stogie]

Well, since the story has been retracted it's all moot now, but I think it should be obvious to him why he isn't starting. To me, when he says he isn't getting a straight story, it sounds as if he's whining and trying to save a little face by placing the blame on the coaches, when instead the reason he was benched is as clear as day.

[WinnpegSkinsFan]

Well, since the story has been retracted it's all moot now, but I think it should be obvious to him why he isn't starting. To me, when he says he isn't getting a straight story, it sounds as if he's whining and trying to save a little face by placing the blame on the coaches, when instead the reason he was benched is as clear as day.

He still deserves to be told face-to-face that he isn't starting & why he isn't starting.

[BIGSEF3]

He still deserves to be told face-to-face that he isn't starting & why he isn't starting.

Ive said it before and i'll say it again: Arch is not playing because of something personal that happened between him and some coach that happened OFF THE FIELD. Just like Lavar. No coach would treat a player like AA has been treated solely for his on-field performance. This has to be something off the field, and AA knows exactly what it is for. No oen has to tell him face-to-face. That said, this is still all very unprofessional.

[joethefan]

Well, since the story has been retracted it's all moot now, but I think it should be obvious to him why he isn't starting. To me, when he says he isn't getting a straight story, it sounds as if he's whining and trying to save a little face by placing the blame on the coaches, when instead the reason he was benched is as clear as day.


You're right but being a professional also applies to coaches as well. And if Gregg isn't talking, then who looks guilty?...I think the damage is already done. Then after the season he'll have alot to say, knowing the player might not be here next year...I think that's a cowardly move. But to show up on Comcast to give interviews, and in other instances, quickly dismissing the issue after it's been brought up by reporters time after time, is wrong or after the game telling us that Adam will get in on certain packages and you know he won't. that's not good..IMO..if you're man enough to defend Sean T when he makes a mistake, you should be man enough to say either you made a mistake in judgment on picking Arch or he doesn't fit this scheme (which will still make you look like an idoit) or saying that you had him playing in some spots that maybe you shouldn't have ...say something...but your silence continues to makes you look guilty IMHO...

[joethefan]

Ive said it before and i'll say it again: Arch is not playing because of something personal that happened between him and some coach that happened OFF THE FIELD. Just like Lavar. No coach would treat a player like AA has been treated solely for his on-field performance. This has to be something off the field, and AA knows exactly what it is for. No oen has to tell him face-to-face. That said, this is still all very unprofessional.

I agree...maybe their punishing him for not being there in the offseason, or maybe his play just made them look like fools after making him the highest paid safety at that time, and he's being punished for that. Who knows..wheatever it is, they need to be men and stop being in high school....

[CNYSkinFan]

Everyone wants to side with the coaches or AA. Why can't we accept the fact that both sides could be wrong just like in the situation with LA.
I agree with this too. Hoiwever the reason I harp on the coaches, espescially on the defensive side of the ball, is because players come and go, these coaches have gotten progressively worse and arrogant over the last 3 years. One of the reasons we all loved Joe Gibbs is he could be great and humble at the same time. GW has now had a history, some would call it a pattern, of behavior towards many of his defensive players. I think he has lost this defense and I am not sure he can get them back.

One of the things I never ever will understand is the all or nothing mentality of the defensive staff. First Arch is the unquestioned starter, then he is benched and not used in any situation? I don't get it. How do you fall from starter to waterboy so fast? Why is there no gradual progression or regression?

That to me points to a fickle arrogance and that is why I am starting to lean a little on the player's side right now. Team leaders like Daniels wynn and MW may be saying all the right things because they are trying to win on the field, but the GW fickled finger of fate has not landed on them yet. I am afraid it is only a matter of time.

[danny's stogie]

I agree with this too. Hoiwever the reason I harp on the coaches, espescially on the defensive side of the ball, is because players come and go, these coaches have gotten progressively worse and arrogant over the last 3 years. One of the reasons we all loved Joe Gibbs is he could be great and humble at the same time. GW has now had a history, some would call it a pattern, of behavior towards many of his defensive players. I think he has lost this defense and I am not sure he can get them back.

One of the things I never ever will understand is the all or nothing mentality of the defensive staff. First Arch is the unquestioned starter, then he is benched and not used in any situation? I don't get it. How do you fall from starter to waterboy so fast? Why is there no gradual progression or regression?

That to me points to a fickle arrogance and that is why I am starting to lean a little on the player's side right now. Team leaders like Daniels wynn and MW may be saying all the right things because they are trying to win on the field, but the GW fickled finger of fate has not landed on them yet. I am afraid it is only a matter of time.

Carter went from full time starter, to rotation player, back to full time starter again.


You're right but being a professional also applies to coaches as well. And if Gregg isn't talking, then who looks guilty?...I think the damage is already done. Then after the season he'll have alot to say, knowing the player might not be here next year...I think that's a cowardly move. But to show up on Comcast to give interviews, and in other instances, quickly dismissing the issue after it's been brought up by reporters time after time, is wrong or after the game telling us that Adam will get in on certain packages and you know he won't. that's not good..IMO..if you're man enough to defend Sean T when he makes a mistake, you should be man enough to say either you made a mistake in judgment on picking Arch or he doesn't fit this scheme (which will still make you look like an idoit) or saying that you had him playing in some spots that maybe you shouldn't have ...say something...but your silence continues to makes you look guilty IMHO...

I agree with a lot of this, but I'm not really sure what they're supposed to say to the press. It's tough to say someone was a mistake when they sit in on defensive meetings.

[CNYSkinFan]

Carter went from full time starter, to rotation player, back to full time starter again.




I agree with a lot of this, but I'm not really sure what they're supposed to say to the press. It's tough to say someone was a mistake when they sit in on defensive meetings.
Maybe i missed something but when did Carter not start? I thought he started all 15 games? I may be wrong but I am pretty sure he did. I know at one point Wynn was used more but that was because of injuries to Daniels and Carter both.

[danny's stogie]

Maybe i missed something but when did Carter not start? I thought he started all 15 games? I may be wrong but I am pretty sure he did. I know at one point Wynn was used more but that was because of injuries to Daniels and Carter both.

I'm just saying the coaches aren't intractable, there is some middle ground in how much PT the players get.

[joethefan]

I agree with this too. Hoiwever the reason I harp on the coaches, espescially on the defensive side of the ball, is because players come and go, these coaches have gotten progressively worse and arrogant over the last 3 years. One of the reasons we all loved Joe Gibbs is he could be great and humble at the same time. GW has now had a history, some would call it a pattern, of behavior towards many of his defensive players. I think he has lost this defense and I am not sure he can get them back.

One of the things I never ever will understand is the all or nothing mentality of the defensive staff. First Arch is the unquestioned starter, then he is benched and not used in any situation? I don't get it. How do you fall from starter to waterboy so fast? Why is there no gradual progression or regression?

That to me points to a fickle arrogance and that is why I am starting to lean a little on the player's side right now. Team leaders like Daniels wynn and MW may be saying all the right things because they are trying to win on the field, but the GW fickled finger of fate has not landed on them yet. I am afraid it is only a matter of time.

good points...I can't understand the arrogance though..esp when you were no higher than maybe 14 all season....hmm come back to earth gregg

[CNYSkinFan]

I'm just saying the coaches aren't intractable, there is some middle ground in how much PT the players get.
Yeah but I am looking for examples of that, and I don't see it. Carter has always been a starter. They may have worked Wynn in on rotations, but he never went from full time starter to cheerleader coach like Arch has.

You can't drop from Starter to 4th string in a logical manner. It's fickle arrogance (my new term of the day) to drop a guy completely. A guy who did have some success on the field (none in coverage but he was the surest tackler on the field).

[danny's stogie]

Yeah but I am looking for examples of that, and I don't see it. Carter has always been a starter. They may have worked Wynn in on rotations, but he never went from full time starter to cheerleader coach like Arch has.

You can't drop from Starter to 4th string in a logical manner. It's fickle arrogance (my new term of the day) to drop a guy completely. A guy who did have some success on the field (none in coverage but he was the surest tackler on the field).

Holdman last year. But I think Carter, while not technically losing his starting job pretty much fills the bill. His PT was reduced significantly earlier this season and now he rarely leaves the field.

[akhhorus]

good points...I can't understand the arrogance though..esp when you were no higher than maybe 14 all season....hmm come back to earth gregg

Can you explain why benching Arch and then refusing(according to Arch, which isn't the greatest source) to tell Arch exactly what's going on is considered arrogance? Aloofness maybe.

[CNYSkinFan]

Holdman last year. But I think Carter, while not technically losing his starting job pretty much fills the bill. His PT was reduced significantly earlier this season and now he rarely leaves the field.
Actually the Holdman -Lavar situation last year fits more in line with the fickle arrogance. Lavar pretty much was kept out of all packages until the San Fran game, despite beign healthy enough to return. Then they finally started him (though they played alot of 3-4) and finally he won the job.

I don't think the coaching staff EVER labeled Holdman as a player who can't play anymore the way they labaled Lavar at the start of last year or Arch this year. My proof is they resigned Holdman (when no other NFL team wanted him...he got a 25k SB for crying out loud. Snyder basically gave him a used Toyota Camry) and inserted him in the starting lineup this year and stuck with him despite his obvious lack of effectiveness on the field.

[CNYSkinFan]

Can you explain why benching Arch and then refusing(according to Arch, which isn't the greatest source) to tell Arch exactly what's going on is considered arrogance? Aloofness maybe.
thats parsing hairs. Aloofness is a by product of arrogance. You can't be alooof without being arrogant as well. Your arrogance causes your aloofness.

[akhhorus]

thats parsing hairs. Aloofness is a by product of arrogance. You can't be alooof without being arrogant as well. Your arrogance causes your aloofness.

Thats not answering the question. How is benching Arch(or Lavar Love Hewitt for that matter) when he(they) aren't playing well at all, arrogance?

[danny's stogie]

Actually the Holdman -Lavar situation last year fits more in line with the fickle arrogance. Lavar pretty much was kept out of all packages until the San Fran game, despite beign healthy enough to return. Then they finally started him (though they played alot of 3-4) and finally he won the job.

I don't think the coaching staff EVER labeled Holdman as a player who can't play anymore the way they labaled Lavar at the start of last year or Arch this year. My proof is they resigned Holdman (when no other NFL team wanted him...he got a 25k SB for crying out loud. Snyder basically gave him a used Toyota Camry) and inserted him in the starting lineup this year and stuck with him despite his obvious lack of effectiveness on the field.

I disagree. Lavar was in the doghouse at the beginning of the season then they gave him a chance to play.

Holdman started last year then get benched in favor of Lavar, but still got a good deal of PT.

They're both examples of coaching staff flexibility.

I think Carter is the best example though considering he was signed the same year as Arch and that he also struggled at the beginning of the season. Carter struggled, lost some PT, then regained it. Maybe when both Carter and Arch were struggling Carter did something right and improved his play and practice habits to get back on the field. Maybe Arch didn't.

[CNYSkinFan]

Thats not answering the question. How is benching Arch(or Lavar Love Hewitt for that matter) when he(they) aren't playing well at all, arrogance?
The arrogance of Williams is shown in his feelings that player's are replaceable and that it is his system, not the talent on the field, that makes his defense work.

When you think players are replaceable they do not deserve explanations from you. His refusal to talk to Arch is a product of his overall arrognace of thinking his system is superior to talent.

BTW I have no problem with arrogance, when that arrogance is deserved. Since GW's defense has had significant dropoffs each of the last two years, I do not think his arrogance is deserved.

[CNYSkinFan]

Thats not answering the question. How is benching Arch(or Lavar Love Hewitt for that matter) when he(they) aren't playing well at all, arrogance?
Becnhing in itself though is not a form of arrogance. I have no problem with benching, but not talking to the player about it is arrogance.

[danny's stogie]

The arrogance of Williams is shown in his feelings that player's are replaceable and that it is his system, not the talent on the field, that makes his defense work.

When you think players are replaceable they do not deserve explanations from you. His refusal to talk to Arch is a product of his overall arrognace of thinking his system is superior to talent.

BTW I have no problem with arrogance, when that arrogance is deserved. Since GW's defense has had significant dropoffs each of the last two years, I do not think his arrogance is deserved.

Williams's actions speak louder than his words on the issue. They repeatedly try to draft and sign players that they consider upgrades.

Also, his defense didn't drop off until this season. The second half 05 defense was the best I've seen the Skins defense play in years, possibly ever.

[joethefan]

Can you explain why benching Arch and then refusing(according to Arch, which isn't the greatest source) to tell Arch exactly what's going on is considered arrogance? Aloofness maybe.

Because you should be a professional in a business of professionals....Joe remains professional. And while you stand in front of everyone and make excuses for other players you don't for certain people...that's what I call arrogance...on other words Gregg thinks that he knows the answer to everything, when in all actuality, his decisions are the ones in question....

[akhhorus]

Becnhing in itself though is not a form of arrogance. I have no problem with benching, but not talking to the player about it is arrogance.

That, if true, is a minor point imo. Arch is delusional if he doesn't understand why he was benched.

[CNYSkinFan]

I disagree. Lavar was in the doghouse at the beginning of the season then they gave him a chance to play.

Holdman started last year then get benched in favor of Lavar, but still got a good deal of PT.

They're both examples of coaching staff flexibility.

I think Carter is the best example though considering he was signed the same year as Arch and that he also struggled at the beginning of the season. Carter struggled, lost some PT, then regained it. Maybe when both Carter and Arch were struggling Carter did something right and improved his play and practice habits to get back on the field. Maybe Arch didn't.
They gave Lavar a chance to play because it was obvious he was more talented then Holdman and the defense did play better under Lavar. Holdman continued to get PT because he is a pet project of Lindsey who has never stopped believing in him. (I know I know we disagree on this and I am tired of this 2 year old debate so I am dropping this portion of it).

Carter was never benched. I do not see how this is an example of the defensive staff taking someone out of favor and working him back into the lineup.

[garedskin]

He still deserves to be told face-to-face that he isn't starting & why he isn't starting.


Hell when they DONT call your name that should be a sign.The idiot is to stupid to even KNOW why he was benched.Having to roll his sorry ass around every weeek to put out the flames was not his job in this defence.I guess he thought his huge contract was a right of entitlement.It just proved to everyone that you have to perform to stay on the field as a STARTER.I think he desrved to be benched and am glad we have a coaching staff that have the balls to bench a guy who just cannot play for us TODAY.
I was hoping he would be able to turn his situation around and earn a starting job.It seems for all intent and purposes HE WILL NOT.Oh well
Is Ed Reed a FA?I would gladedly give him Archuletas contract.:Peace:

[CNYSkinFan]

Williams's actions speak louder than his words on the issue. They repeatedly try to draft and sign players that they consider upgrades.

Also, his defense didn't drop off until this season. The second half 05 defense was the best I've seen the Skins defense play in years, possibly ever.
#3 in the league in 2004

#10 in the league in 2005

#30 in the league in 2006

That's drop off son. You can take the 6 game stretch last year but it was part of a whole (a 6 game stretch I must point our where Lavar started over holdman for the most part). The whole team played well the last part of the year, offense, defense, special teams. The 2004 defense had one of the worst offenses on the field I have seen in B&G. They were a better defense (and neither Lavar or Holdman were around to help them out).

[danny's stogie]

They gave Lavar a chance to play because it was obvious he was more talented then Holdman and the defense did play better under Lavar. Holdman continued to get PT because he is a pet project of Lindsey who has never stopped believing in him. (I know I know we disagree on this and I am tired of this 2 year old debate so I am dropping this portion of it).

Carter was never benched. I do not see how this is an example of the defensive staff taking someone out of favor and working him back into the lineup.

So basically what your saying is that the coaching staff plays whoever gives the team a better chance to win. Glad you finally see it my way.

[akhhorus]

Because you should be a professional in a business of professionals....Joe remains professional. And while you stand in front of everyone and make excuses for other players you don't for certain people...that's what I call arrogance...on other words thinking tGregg thinks that he knows the answer to everything, when in all actuality, his decisions are the ones in question....

Since when is Arch owed anything by Gibbs or Williams? And making excuses for some players and not for all of them isn't any form of the english language definition of "arrogance". That selective praise/treatment.

[CNYSkinFan]

So basically what your saying is that the coaching staff plays whoever gives the team a better chance to win. Glad you finally see it my way.
Ok I will give you points for the great turn aroound of my point but that was not remotely what I was saying and you know it.

[akhhorus]

Is Ed Reed a FA?I would gladedly give him Archuletas contract.:Peace:

He got much more than Arch did. 18 million guaranteed.

[danny's stogie]

#3 in the league in 2004

#10 in the league in 2005

#30 in the league in 2006

That's drop off son. You can take the 6 game stretch last year but it was part of a whole (a 6 game stretch I must point our where Lavar started over holdman for the most part). The whole team played well the last part of the year, offense, defense, special teams. The 2004 defense had one of the worst offenses on the field I have seen in B&G. They were a better defense (and neither Lavar or Holdman were around to help them out).

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef2004.php

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef2005.php

It's a weighted average. It takes things into account like strength of schedule. The Skins also had key injuries at times last season that they didn't have to deal with in 04. Son.

[joethefan]

That, if true, is a minor point imo. Arch is delusional if he doesn't understand why he was benched.

Ye but Akh what happens if you go to work one day and I get fired from a job and no one told you why. You made some normal mistakes as others on the Job have done as well, but nothing really worth getting pulled in the bosses office for. But to not tell you why...wouldn't you at least wanna know why.....?

[danny's stogie]

Ok I will give you points for the great turn aroound of my point but that was not remotely what I was saying and you know it.

Really? Then I don't know what you're trying to say. You just pointed out that the Skins have shown flexibility throughout the course of a season with regards to a players' PT, and as much as you want to spin it, Carter is an example of it. If Lavar can go in and out of the lineup despite being in the doghouse and getting the same "packages" explanation at the beginning of last season, why can't Arch?

[akhhorus]

Ye but Akh what happens if you go to work one day and I get fired from a job and no one told you why. You made some normal mistakes as others on the Job have done as well, but nothing really worth getting pulled in the bosses office for. But to not tell you why...wouldn't you at least wanna know why.....?

If I was pretty bad at my job and screwing up a lot, and I was fired without explanation, I would put 2 and 2 together.

[joethefan]

Since when is Arch owed anything by Gibbs or Williams?


I just thought since they sought him out and payed him alot of money to ultimalty be a part of the team and they did go and seek him out and he went to training camp, and became a starter by being thrown into a situation he may not have been ready for, that they would have at least had some sort of conversation with him (when i say they I mean GW and Co.). But when Lloyd had a fit with him, Gibbs got a hold of him quick, which iswhat he should have done..

Gregg doesn't seem to be too comfrontational with his players. Doesn't seem like he communicates well with them. But speaks well on Comcast...lol

Maybe it's this way."Either you do it or you don't I don't care how much money you make..Oh I forgot i was the one that sought after you so i'm really the one looking like a butthole"..

[BIGSEF3]

Because you should be a professional in a business of professionals....Joe remains professional. And while you stand in front of everyone and make excuses for other players you don't for certain people...that's what I call arrogance...on other words Gregg thinks that he knows the answer to everything, when in all actuality, his decisions are the ones in question....

Whether to bench AA or not is a coaches decision. But you are right. How this was handled by GW reaks of arrogance.

For whatever reason, this team has decided to make an example of AA. Personally, I think they need to make an example of Greg Williams. I'm not saying that everything is ENTIRELY williams fault. I'm sure if we knew all the facts, there would be plenty of blame to go around.

However, I think GW started to lose this defense with the way he handled Arrington. When you treat the teams most beloved player - the face of the franchise - like he is utterly irrelevant, you destroy morale. Letting core players like Smoot and Pierce walk could have been viewed as mistakes. But GW showed this wasnt just a fluke- it was a PATTERN. HE let Clark walk becuase he wasnt "worth" the money he DESERVED. Then we sign some flashy FA with known coverage issues to the largest contract ever for a safety?! What kind of message do you think that sends to this defense? Theres no loyalty from coaches to players, so why are the players going to FIGHT for their coach? Theyre not. The reason we have almost the worst defense in the NFL this year is because Williams lost his defense. And how are we supposed to replace guys like Springs and AA if they leave? What FA is going to WANT to come here and play for Williams now? He has a bad reputation accross the league for how he's handled his players. IMHO we need to let Williams walk and promote Blanche. Keep the system. Keep the players. Make an example of Williams.

[akhhorus]

I just thought since they sought him out and payed him alot of money to ultimalty be a part of the team and they did go and seek him out and he went to training camp, and became a starter by being thrown into a situation he may not have been ready for, that they would have at least had some sort of conversation with him (when i say they I mean GW and Co.). But when Lloyd had a fit with him, Gibbs got a hold of him quick, which iswhat he should have done..

Gregg doesn't seem to be too comfrontational with his players. Doesn't seem like he communicates well with them. But speaks well on Comcast...lol

Maybe it's this way."Either you do it or you don't I don't care how much money you make..Oh I forgot i was the one that sought after you so i'm really the one looking like a butthole"..

How much Arch makes is irrelevant. And Williams going on comcast is irrelevant, unless he's ripping or criticising Arch on it and not to his face. Answer the question joe: what does Williams and Gibbs owe Arch exactly?

[joethefan]

If I was pretty bad at my job and screwing up a lot, and I was fired without explanation, I would put 2 and 2 together.

Yea well myself and someone else was fired from a job once, wasn't told why and all the additional left workers had a fit casue they knew i knew my job and did it well just like everyone else...but and those same workers admitted it and came to one conclusion and many of them are still there three years later...poor manangement...

[CNYSkinFan]

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef2004.php

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef2005.php

It's a weighted average. It takes things into account like strength of schedule. The Skins also had key injuries at times last season that they didn't have to deal with in 04. Son.
There you go again making things complicated when they are not. It's as if you seek out stats to prove your theories instead of basing your theories on the stats available to us.

The 2004 defense was a monster on the field and had one of the worst offenses in the league behind it. The 2005 defense had an offense that could chew up clock and control the ball.

Both defenses had injuries to overcome (Lavar was out all year in 2004, Michael Barorw was supposed to start at MLB but never saw the field, Taylor was not starting for the first half, Bowen was in and out of the lineup due to injury for example). 2005 had some injuries as well, so that is a wash.

[CNYSkinFan]

If I was pretty bad at my job and screwing up a lot, and I was fired without explanation, I would put 2 and 2 together.
yeah but he was not fired...he was sent to the basement like Melvin in Office Space. And remember what happened at the end of Office Space?

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/twentieth_century_fox/office_space/stephen_root/officespace1.jpg

That is it I am burning the place down!!!

[joethefan]

How much Arch makes is irrelevant. And Williams going on comcast is irrelevant, unless he's ripping or criticising Arch on it and not to his face. Answer the question joe: what does Williams and Gibbs owe Arch exactly?

Just a reason why he wasn't used more. And an answer to why was he brought here pointing out his strengths and a reason to why they weren't beeing used? That's what i would expect to hear from them.

Is that fair to want to know? As a player who was on his way to Chicago and you ran in front of the plane and yelled stopp!!! Adam here's some extra money, we watched your film an yes you can help us win... I would expect not exactly an apology but at least some honesty and and up front conversation...that shouldn't be too much to ask is it?

[danny's stogie]

There you go again making things complicated when they are not. It's as if you seek out stats to prove your theories instead of basing your theories on the stats available to us.

You do the same thing, you also choose stats that fit your theories. Sorry if I consider one measurement more accurate than another and give justification for it, instead of viewing everything in black and white.

I also use my eyes. The end of the year 05 defense was the best I've ever seen the defense play during GW's tenure.


The 2004 defense was a monster on the field and had one of the worst offenses in the league behind it. The 2005 defense had an offense that could chew up clock and control the ball. ...and injuries and tougher schedule.


Both defenses had injuries to overcome (Lavar was out all year in 2004, Michael Barorw was supposed to start at MLB but never saw the field, Taylor was not starting for the first half, Bowen was in and out of the lineup due to injury for example). 2005 had some injuries as well, so that is a wash.

How is Barrow relevant? He never played a down for the Skins. The Skins lost two of their best players in 05 at the same time, Sean Taylor and especially Griffin. Bowen does not in any way carry the same impact that Griffin does.


Anyways, I'm still waiting for an answer to this...
Williams's actions speak louder than his words on the issue. They repeatedly try to draft and sign players that they consider upgrades.
It's a contradiction in your argument. Why, if the system is greater than the player do they target and sign players they consider to be upgrades? Why do they draft Rogers to replace Smoot, or Rocky to replace Holdman? I think what it really means is that GW doesn't care about reputation, salary, or fan favorites, he cares about putting the players on the field that best implement his system and consequently who give the team the best chance of winning. That's not overly arrogant, that's what you should expect from any coach in any sport.

[joethefan]

Whether to bench AA or not is a coaches decision. But you are right. How this was handled by GW reaks of arrogance.

For whatever reason, this team has decided to make an example of AA. Personally, I think they need to make an example of Greg Williams. I'm not saying that everything is ENTIRELY williams fault. I'm sure if we knew all the facts, there would be plenty of blame to go around.

However, I think GW started to lose this defense with the way he handled Arrington. When you treat the teams most beloved player - the face of the franchise - like he is utterly irrelevant, you destroy morale. Letting core players like Smoot and Pierce walk could have been viewed as mistakes. But GW showed this wasnt just a fluke- it was a PATTERN. HE let Clark walk becuase he wasnt "worth" the money he DESERVED. Then we sign some flashy FA with known coverage issues to the largest contract ever for a safety?! What kind of message do you think that sends to this defense? Theres no loyalty from coaches to players, so why are the players going to FIGHT for their coach? Theyre not. The reason we have almost the worst defense in the NFL this year is because Williams lost his defense. And how are we supposed to replace guys like Springs and AA if they leave? What FA is going to WANT to come here and play for Williams now? He has a bad reputation accross the league for how he's handled his players. IMHO we need to let Williams walk and promote Blanche. Keep the system. Keep the players. Make an example of Williams.

WOW...that's interesting. Not sure in Blache could get it done..remember George Edwards...another DC disciple...don't like the disciples...at least in our history that's all I need to say. but will the team respect blache if he's GW's boy, as you talked about GW losing the team?

[CNYSkinFan]

You do the same thing, you also choose stats that fit your theories. Sorry if I consider one measurement more accurate than another and give justification for it, instead of viewing everything in black and white.

I also use my eyes. The end of the year 05 defense was the best I've ever seen the defense play during GW's tenure.


...and injuries and tougher schedule.

except the stats I am using are universally recognized...but ok whatever.

Also if you were using your eyes you would have noticed that the defense at the end of 2005 was also benefitting from one of the best clock control ground game offensive displays since the first Gibbs term to benefit from. Having rest and a decent offense is the defenses best friend, neither of which did the 2004 team have and they outpreformed the 2005 team.

How is Barrow relevant? He never played a down for the Skins. The Skins lost two of their best players in 05 at the same time, Sean Taylor and especially Griffin. Bowen does not in any way carry the same impact that Griffin does.

No but they are injuries nonethe less. Barrow's injury forced a shift in training camp to Pierce. Bowen was a starter that had to be replaced. Lavar was a starter that had to be replaced. Daniels was a starter that had to be replaced. Injuries happen in the NFL, they happened in 2004 as well. They were still a better defense then 2005, saying otherwise is ridiculous and counter intuitive when the 2004 defense was in every statistal way (except for the strange calculous of that website you sent over) better then the 2005 defense and didn't half 1/2 the offense as the 2005 defense benefitteed from.

[whitskins]

No but they are injuries nonethe less. Barrow's injury forced a shift in training camp to Pierce. Bowen was a starter that had to be replaced. Lavar was a starter that had to be replaced. Daniels was a starter that had to be replaced. Injuries happen in the NFL, they happened in 2004 as well. They were still a better defense then 2005, saying otherwise is ridiculous and counter intuitive when the 2004 defense was in every statistal way (except for the strange calculous of that website you sent over) better then the 2005 defense and didn't half 1/2 the offense as the 2005 defense benefitteed from.

Factoring in strength of schedules into the overall worth of a defense isn't calculus. In 2005 the Skins played the second toughest schedule in the NFL, in 2004 their schedule was dog meat. The 2004 defense was tough, but it never dominated the way we did down the stretch last year, and it beat up on a ton of absolute cream puffs. I think that year's defense was overrated and probably belonged in the bottom half of the top ten.

[danny's stogie]

except the stats I am using are universally recognized...but ok whatever.

DVOA rankings are widely cited and offer more insight than simply yards given up.

Also if you were using your eyes you would have noticed that the defense at the end of 2005 was also benefitting from one of the best clock control ground game offensive displays since the first Gibbs term to benefit from. Having rest and a decent offense is the defenses best friend, neither of which did the 2004 team have and they outpreformed the 2005 team.
The second half 05 defense also forced turnovers and scored TDs, something the 04 defense rarely did.

No but they are injuries nonethe less. Barrow's injury forced a shift in training camp to Pierce. Bowen was a starter that had to be replaced. Lavar was a starter that had to be replaced. Daniels was a starter that had to be replaced. Injuries happen in the NFL, they happened in 2004 as well. They were still a better defense then 2005, saying otherwise is ridiculous and counter intuitive when the 2004 defense was in every statistal way (except for the strange calculous of that website you sent over) better then the 2005 defense and didn't half 1/2 the offense as the 2005 defense benefitteed from.

Daniels is always injured. Barrow is irrelevant no matter how you spin it. etc. None of them have half the impact that losing a dominant, pro bowl caliber player like Griffin does or a midseason injury to ST or the in-and-out of the lineup of Springs.

[BIGSEF3]

WOW...that's interesting. Not sure in Blache could get it done..remember George Edwards...another DC disciple...don't like the disciples...at least in our history that's all I need to say. but will the team respect blache if he's GW's boy, as you talked about GW losing the team?

I just mentioned blanche b/c hes a disciple, he was the DC when Williams was HC in Buffalo, and i seem to remember reading an article about him when he first came here that said he was as brilliant as Williams but more "personable."

Perhaps someone else would be better to promote from within, but I think sometimes you DO need to make an example of someone. I'm making the assumption that the problems stem with Williams. It could be firing Jackson would do the trick. I just feel these players need to beleive that their coaches think they are important to this team.

I know i've bashed gibbs alot lately, but the thing i admire about him the most is that he treats his players with respect and he is loyal. Sometimes he is TOO loyal, but that endears him and earns him respect in return. Everything ive read gives me the feeling these players no longer respect Greg Williams.

[CNYSkinFan]

Anyways, I'm still waiting for an answer to this...

It's a contradiction in your argument. Why, if the system is greater than the player do they target and sign players they consider to be upgrades? Why do they draft Rogers to replace Smoot, or Rocky to replace Holdman? I think what it really means is that GW doesn't care about reputation, salary, or fan favorites, he cares about putting the players on the field that best implement his system and consequently who give the team the best chance of winning. That's not overly arrogant, that's what you should expect from any coach in any sport.

Every team goes out and tries to better their personnell each offseason, how does that jive with Williams belief that the system is bigger then the player's?

You let free agents walk before you ever draft a replacement, so the feeling that a player is replaceable is not undone because they go out and draft a younger version a month later.

The Ryan Clark deal is where GW tried to upgrade over Clark with Arch. But again he felt Clark was replaceable and he could plug Arch in despite his weaknesses. He was proven wrong.

Oh and Rocky was drafted not to replace Holdman (as I believe Holdman was not signed until after the draft but I may be wrong) but to replace Lavar. Again they felt Lavar was replaceable.

He also felt Marshall could replace Pierce, and for one year he was right, but Marshall got old and now this move does not look so good.

I am not the only oine who has said GW cares about the system and thinks more of it then the players. People with alot more connection to the team then you and I have have reported this. Former players have said it here in DC and Buffalo. I don't think I am wrong to point this out as a definite possibility.

[garedskin]

He got much more than Arch did. 18 million guaranteed.


Crap.He deserves it at least. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for Archuleta.:Peace:

[joethefan]

I am not the only oine who has said GW cares about the system and thinks more of it then the players. People with alot more connection to the team then you and I have have reported this. Former players have said it here in DC and Buffalo. I don't think I am wrong to point this out as a definite possibility.


If that's the case then we have another core problem like I worte about before..and maybe that's why rocky isn't playing...because GW refuses to allow anyone to mess his baby (system) news flash GW it's been that way for at least this season.

[Meatsnack]

How much Arch makes is irrelevant. And Williams going on comcast is irrelevant, unless he's ripping or criticising Arch on it and not to his face. Answer the question joe: what does Williams and Gibbs owe Arch exactly?
Coaching. According to Arch, he isn't being given what he needs to improve. If true it's wrong.

[Meatsnack]

Joe Gibbs has always taken the blame and never called out players publicly. Why would this change now?
Gibbs doesn't call out players publicly and never will. That's what he has Buges and his other hatchetmen for. Gibbs remains "presidential" in public, as he should as the face of the team. But, the dirtywork gets done because it needs to get done. Players get called out by this staff, ala Lindsey and Buges in recent memory.

[greatest2]

you want people to not call you a bust, play hard. im tired of the crying, coachs don't do this, the offseason workout isn't right, i don't get the system, :cry: to much crying. Do the fundamentals, if your a safety stay deep, don't bite, take egood angles, study hard, tackle well. Stop feeling sorry for yourself and make the critics eat there words!!!!!


stop crying and play with a chip on your shoulder, football is football, simlpe fundamentals

[Meatsnack]

What do they tell him about being benched? What do you say to Collins when he doesn't win the starting QB job? "Sorry Todd, you see, you pretty much suck and aren't nearly as good Brunell or Campbell. Tough luck, try again next year."
In any organization that utilizes a skilled workforce (the NFL qualifies), managers are on the hook for developing staff.You don't invest tons of capital to bring in and assimilate an employee only to let him continue to suck.

In a team sport this is even more straight-forward. If you make the call to bring in a guy and he isn't what you thought or needs development to plug a hole, you partner with that person and fight like heck to bring them up to speed. The whole reason for this thread is that Arch maintains that he has been put in the corner and ignored. If it is true, and several sources have intimated as much, it points to several bad things:

1) CNY's arrogance, that a multimillion dollar asset has been cast aside and not developed
2) lack of respect for the organizations limited resources
3) inflexibility in finding a way to use Arch

Prior to crossing the Potomac, not one source ever claimed that Arch was the worst coverage safety on the planet or that his game stank on ice. Something about this team and the way they have decided to use him have made him look worse than he ever was before coming here. Is there something magic about crossing the Potomac? Doubtful.

Is Arch or any player on the hook for learning his responsibilites and playing assignment sound? Absolutely yes. Did Arch play badly? Absolutely. Is that a reason to ostracize him and refuse to coach him? Absolutely not.

This has been said before by others as well as me, the perfect storm of the injuries to Prioleau and Springs forced the coaches hand with Arch. What happened afterward, though, appears to have been handled badly.

[American Soldier]

IMO, no matter how you slice it, it comes down to GW and his coaching staff. They wanted Arch so badly that we made him the highest paid safety in NFL history. They better find a way to make it work!! If you think about it, Arch doesn't have a history of mouthing off and complaining. I find it very difficult to believe that they can't find to get him in any "defensive packages" on the field. I'm getting very tired of how stuborn our coaching staff can be at time. I've heard GW say "it's the scheme" way too long. Bottom line is we don't have any playmakers other than #21 on the defensive side of the ball (with apologies to Marcus Washington). Sure Arch's coverage was horrible but why is the coaching staff placing him in situations where he has never done well. Why did it take so long last year to play Arrington when everybody in the world could see how badly Warrick Holdman sucked? (and I'm not buying the injury card on that one). Plugging Marshall in for Pierce wouldn't have been so bad if we didn't lose Arrington. LA wasn't playing up to his contract but he was far better than Holdman. Now we ended up re-signing Holdman, then trading up in the draft to pick McIntosh but still wouldn't start him until last week due to Marcus Washington being on IR. Warrick Holdman is not a starting LB, so why not play Rocky? I'm starting to think someone (or people) in our defensive coaching staff need to get it together fast! There is no excuse from going from the #3 defense to #30 in 2 years!


Agree wholeheartedly!!!!.....

In the military if your unit fails a mission, it is up to the leader of that unit to identify the problem and "train up" his men to do a better job. If you don't like someone personally, the mission still has to get done!
The leader of this defense has failed miserably to motivate his guys (only 11 guys!!!) to play at a high level. Not only that, if you look closely, you'll see a trend. If you bump heads with GW you don't play. It has nothing to do with on the field performance so much as a vendictive. Lavar went through it. Arch is going through it. Further, if the Redskins have problems evaluating incoming players, what makes you think they evaluate the player they have well? Pierson, Clark and even Harris come to mind....

How does one player play so bad so fast? I don't know, but the Redskins seem to breed players that play well enough for other team to make the NFL highlights, come here via free agency, make a lot of money and play terribly here. Maybe...just maybe over-coaching screws it up. Hmm, let's see: http://www.arch31.com/ssp/highlights/

[American Soldier]

How much Arch makes is irrelevant. And Williams going on comcast is irrelevant, unless he's ripping or criticising Arch on it and not to his face. Answer the question joe: what does Williams and Gibbs owe Arch exactly?

Answer: An explanation.

Do you honestly think that this is an isolated incident? Look at the past!!

Coles (Want's out after a pretty good year)
Arrington (Leaves....says the same think Arch is saying)
Clark (Says he doesn't know why they didn't keep him)
Pierce (Wanted to stay)
Smoot (Wanted to stay)

Just think about this. When a player is traded, they have to move their families, get to know new people, learn a new system and who knows what else. If you think that a player wants to go through that crap every couple years (let alone one) than this point of view is mute.
Look, Williams is a complete egomaniac!! Arch is a victim!!! The truth of the matter is Arch was a "rookie" in this defense according to his early interviews. The ability to excel in any defense is predicated on the ability to react vice think. Arch was still in "think" mode. You can't fault him for that after only 6 or 7 games. The problem is clearly the coaching. GW took ST through the verbal slammings during team meetings. ST personality warranted it. Arch's personality is different. A coach should recognize that. YOU CAN NOT COMMUNICATE WITH EVERYONE THE SAME WAY AND SUCCEED AS A LEADER. You don't have to cater but you can't afford to lose the hearts and minds of anyone on your team because it can get contagious very quickly - very fast. It looks like it already has. Keep an eye on Sean Taylor.

[akhhorus]

Answer: An explanation.

Do you honestly think that this is an isolated incident? Look at the past!!

Coles (Want's out after a pretty good year)
Arrington (Leaves....says the same think Arch is saying)
Clark (Says he doesn't know why they didn't keep him)
Pierce (Wanted to stay)
Smoot (Wanted to stay)

Just think about this. When a player is traded, they have to move their families, get to know new people, learn a new system and who knows what else. If you think that a player wants to go through that crap every couple years (let alone one) than this point of view is mute.
Look, Williams is a complete egomaniac!! Arch is a victim!!! The truth of the matter is Arch was a "rookie" in this defense according to his early interviews. The ability to excel in any defense is predicated on the ability to react vice think. Arch was still in "think" mode. You can't fault him for that after only 6 or 7 games. The problem is clearly the coaching. GW took ST through the verbal slammings during team meetings. ST personality warranted it. Arch's personality is different. A coach should recognize that. YOU CAN NOT COMMUNICATE WITH EVERYONE THE SAME WAY AND SUCCEED AS A LEADER. You don't have to cater but you can't afford to lose the hearts and minds of anyone on your team because it can get contagious very quickly - very fast. It looks like it already has. Keep an eye on Sean Taylor.

Coles isn't a defender and is irrelevant. Pierce and Smoot said they wanted to stay, but turned down our offers(which were close) for other offers. They are irrelevant to this discussion. No, Lavar was saying much different things than what Arch is saying. Lavar didn't accuse them of hypothetically lying in the future like Arch did. And I'm sorry, but its hard to discuss the skins with an admitted fairweather fan. I guess you haven't chosen another team to root for?


Coaching. According to Arch, he isn't being given what he needs to improve. If true it's wrong.

You can put a ton of lipstick on a pig, and its still a pig. Arch was given every opportunity to improve on the field and failed, why should Williams keep him on the field just to hope and pray that he would get better instead of going with another player in the hopes that he can produce better than Arch?

[American Soldier]

Wow. Similar interviews

Greg Williams on Archhttp://midatlantic.comcastsportsnet.com/media/video/redskins/redskins-122106.wmv

Sounds eerily like an interview a couple years back when he was ask about Lavar playing. He says Arch had a "good week of practice". Yea right, before the last game of the season? Haven't we heard that before?

Another Arrington quote:
“I could have handled things a little bit better in certain instances, but that's neither here nor there. We're where we're at. We've just got to keep building toward something. And me, if this is the challenge in front of me, that I've got to try and work my way back through the ranks, then rather than trying to be a prima donna and say 'I am who I am, you should give me an opportunity,' I'd rather just work my tail off to try and achieve that.”

Arch says in the interview that Joe Gibbs tells him that he just needs to work his butt off

Arch apparent parting remarks:
http://www.redskins.com/news/multimedia.jsp#
Second to last row of video interviews.

"Do I deserve an explanation?" Archuleta said. "I don't know if an explanation matters anymore because what's done is done. I pretty much know what's going on. I pretty much know what it all stems from."

Arrington's parting remarks by way of his agent:
"This is not really what he wanted to do," said a source close to Arrington, "because he loves the area, he loves the fans and the community and loves his teammates. But at this point, it made sense for LaVar and is in the best interest of the Redskins and his family to go in this direction at the time."

Funny they're on the same page here.
http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/05/AR2006030501025.html

Can you connect the dots here?
Arch is gone....you think?

[akhhorus]

Wow. Similar interviews

Greg Williams on Archhttp://midatlantic.comcastsportsnet.com/media/video/redskins/redskins-122106.wmv

Sounds eerily like an interview a couple years back when he was ask about Lavar playing. He says Arch had a "good week of practice". Yea right, before the last game of the season? Haven't we heard that before?

Another Arrington quote:
“I could have handled things a little bit better in certain instances, but that's neither here nor there. We're where we're at. We've just got to keep building toward something. And me, if this is the challenge in front of me, that I've got to try and work my way back through the ranks, then rather than trying to be a prima donna and say 'I am who I am, you should give me an opportunity,' I'd rather just work my tail off to try and achieve that.”

Arch says in the interview that Joe Gibbs tells him that he just needs to work his butt off

Arch apparent parting remarks:
http://www.redskins.com/news/multimedia.jsp#
Second to last row of video interviews.

"Do I deserve an explanation?" Archuleta said. "I don't know if an explanation matters anymore because what's done is done. I pretty much know what's going on. I pretty much know what it all stems from."

Arrington's parting remarks by way of his agent:
"This is not really what he wanted to do," said a source close to Arrington, "because he loves the area, he loves the fans and the community and loves his teammates. But at this point, it made sense for LaVar and is in the best interest of the Redskins and his family to go in this direction at the time."

Funny they're on the same page here.
http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/05/AR2006030501025.html

Can you connect the dots here?
Arch is gone....you think?

Maybe you should re-read them, because those quotes, especially the 2nd pair sound nothing alike.

[American Soldier]

Coles isn't a defender and is irrelevant. Pierce and Smoot said they wanted to stay, but turned down our offers(which were close) for other offers. They are irrelevant to this discussion. No, Lavar was saying much different things than what Arch is saying. Lavar didn't accuse them of hypothetically lying in the future like Arch did. And I'm sorry, but its hard to discuss the skins with an admitted fairweather fan. I guess you haven't chosen another team to root for?




You can put a ton of lipstick on a pig, and its still a pig. Arch was given every opportunity to improve on the field and failed, why should Williams keep him on the field just to hope and pray that he would get better instead of going with another player in the hopes that he can produce better than Arch?


This is unbelievable. Arch was watched on film, interviewed and wooed in to coming here by this coaching staff. He doesn't produce and you defend the coaching staff. Priceless.
Arch was a rookie in this defense. He's suppose to make mistakes!! Six games in this defense - Six.
By the way, nothing I said earlier was irrevalant. If you weren't so blind in thinking, you'd see this organization has no respect of person when it comes to blowing 2 to 3 years of every player that comes here touted as a playmaker. They're so set in their system that they don't recognize that all playmakers make plays based on instinct more so than some "system" or over-coaching. Sometimes those instincts create turnovers - sometimes not. Sometimes you just gotta let 'em play. This coaching staff will always have these problems because they bring in players that have excelled in this league only to come here and be told a different way to play the game. If this coaching staff wants to coach, start drafting players out of college and not established free agents. Coaching is 90% psychology. This team drives players insane as evident on the field.

I am a fairweather fan. Heck, bad weather will alway loom over this organization until they get their preverbial heads out of their butts and stop playing these mind games with players. If Arch was playing a game to get paid now, cause a rift to create his release next year to eventually play for Lovie the following year than more power to him for a good power move ($$$). Play one year for the Redskins, get released with guaranteed money and go play for an upcoming winner in the Bears. Not bad. The problem is I don't think that was the case. The bigger problem is that it is what will happen and the Redskins again will be the laughing stock of the NFL.

Go Redskins.:banghead:

[American Soldier]

Maybe you should re-read them, because those quotes, especially the 2nd pair sound nothing alike.

C.o.n.n.e.c.t de dots

The dots aren't always right next to one another grasshopper.

[akhhorus]

This is unbelievable. Arch was watched on film, interviewed and wooed in to coming here by this coaching staff. He doesn't produce and you defend the coaching staff. Priceless.
Arch was a rookie in this defense. He's suppose to make mistakes!! Six games in this defense - Six.
By the way, nothing I said earlier was irrevalant. If you weren't so blind in thinking, you'd see this organization has no respect of person when it comes to blowing 2 to 3 years of every player that comes here touted as a playmaker. They're so set in their system that they don't recognize that all playmakers make plays based on instinct more so than some "system" or over-coaching. Sometimes those instincts create turnovers - sometimes not. Sometimes you just gotta let 'em play. This coaching staff will always have these problems because they bring in players that have excelled in this league only to come here and be told a different way to play the game. If this coaching staff wants to coach, start drafting players out of college and not established free agents. Coaching is 90% psychology. This team drives players insane as evident on the field.

I am a fairweather fan. Heck, bad weather will alway loom over this organization until they get their preverbial heads out of their butts and stop playing these mind games with players. If Arch was playing a game to get paid now, cause a rift to create his release next year to eventually play for Lovie the following year than more power to him for a good power move ($$$). Play one year for the Redskins, get released with guaranteed money and go play for an upcoming winner in the Bears. Not bad. The problem is I don't think that was the case. The bigger problem is that it is what will happen and the Redskins again will be the laughing stock of the NFL.

Go Redskins.:banghead:

You still haven't explained any of your points or backed up your blather. This is just more of your scatterbrained whining.

[akhhorus]

C.o.n.n.e.c.t de dots

The dots aren't always right next to one another grasshopper.

I repeat my comment. Nothing you posted sounds alike. And do yourself a favor and change your attitude.

[American Soldier]

Ok. Bottom line.

Arch is gone. Just like Arrington, just like Pierce, just like.....whatever.

Bad weather looms over Redskins Park as long as.....whenever.

Draft day next year will be done by committee......without a GM

And next year this team........loses again.

Connect those dots.

[American Soldier]

You still haven't explained any of your points or backed up your blather. This is just more of your scatterbrained whining.

What are your talking about - points.

What backup does perennial losing need?

[akhhorus]

Ok. Bottom line.

Arch is gone. Just like Arrington, just like Pierce, just like.....whatever.

We don't know if Arch is gone or not. We'll see. Big difference between Arrington/Coles/potentially Arch and Pierce/Smoot. I'll let you connect those easy dots.

Bad weather looms over Redskins Park as long as.....whenever.

In your opinion, but if memory serves, you gave up on this franchise. So, why exactly are you wasting your time with the skins again?

Draft day next year will be done by committee......without a GM

maybe, maybe not. Gibbs left open the potential of bringing in a GM. And for the record, the problem with this team isn't drafting players.

And next year this team........loses again.

And if they don't? You'll just try to take credit for sticking with the team and say you predicted them winning. I seem to recall people saying the same thing after 2004. How did 2005 go again? You never know for sure.

Connect those dots.

Change your attitude.

[akhhorus]

What are your talking about - points.

What backup does perennial losing need?

I seem to recall us winning in 2005, so I guess the Gibbs system worked then. And that would undermine your whining.

[redwolf1218]

these long winded personal arguments are fun to read, but it leaves all the rest of the posts un-answered. at some point it should go to PM.

the fact is, Arch really did not say very much, just a couple of quotes. i think he was misled when he came here, and the coaches made a huge mistake. the rest is damage control.

[American Soldier]

We don't know if Arch is gone or not. We'll see. Big difference between Arrington/Coles/potentially Arch and Pierce/Smoot. I'll let you connect those easy dots.



In your opinion, but if memory serves, you gave up on this franchise. So, why exactly are you wasting your time with the skins again?



maybe, maybe not. Gibbs left open the potential of bringing in a GM. And for the record, the problem with this team isn't drafting players.



And if they don't? You'll just try to take credit for sticking with the team and say you predicted them winning. I seem to recall people saying the same thing after 2004. How did 2005 go again? You never know for sure.



Change your attitude.

The reason I'm here is there's nothing else to do here at work but to get the "true fan" all riled up about nothing. The fact is there's nothing a 50 year or 5 year fan can do but speculate about the future of this team. I can only tell it like I’ve seen it in the past (whether last weeks fiasco, last year's playoff run or even the last SB victory). Either way it doesn't matter because right now this team sucks when you look at wins and losses (which is the only measuring tool you should use unless you're a fan of Pop Warner). Fair-weather or diehard fan can see that.
Based on the past Arch is in fact gone and that is what makes him the same as LA, LC, Pierce and Smoot. Other than that, I don’t see how showing similarities matters.

If the Redskins get a GM it will show that they listen to the crowd/media/fans, otherwise they would have had one already which adds to my view of the bad weather. Getting a GM means change. In other words a season of instability. Otherwise way get one?

The Bengals had something like 8 players get arrested this year. I'm sure their GM had something to do with picking these guys. They may not be the character guys Joe looks for, but they can play football. I'm not saying draft thugs but the only saints playing good football this year is in New Orleans.

I'm also not against a GM, but the truth of the matter is this coaching staff does not manage what they have, so why let a GM buy groceries only to let this coaching staff let it spoil.

Fair weather, die hard. It really doesn't matter in the big scheme of things.
After all these years of watching football, I've come to realize that I'm a diehard football fan. The pure game has been diluded by the business. The Redskins business aspect is just not transparent enough for me to continue to be a "die hard" fan if you will.

[redwolf1218]

The reason I'm here is there's nothing else to do here at work but to get the "true fan" all riled up about nothing. The fact is there's nothing a 50 year or 5 year fan can do but speculate about the future of this team. I can only tell it like I’ve seen it in the past (whether last weeks fiasco, last year's playoff run or even the last SB victory). Either way it doesn't matter because right now this team sucks when you look at wins and losses (which is the only measuring tool you should use unless you're a fan of Pop Warner). Fair-weather or diehard fan can see that.
Based on the past Arch is in fact gone and that is what makes him the same as LA, LC, Pierce and Smoot. Other than that, I don’t see how showing similarities matters.

If the Redskins get a GM it will show that they listen to the crowd/media/fans, otherwise they would have had one already which adds to my view of the bad weather. Getting a GM means change. In other words a season of instability. Otherwise way get one?

The Bengals had something like 8 players get arrested this year. I'm sure their GM had something to do with picking these guys. They may not be the character guys Joe looks for, but they can play football. I'm not saying draft thugs. I'm just saying the only saints playing good football this year is in New Orleans.

I'm also not against a GM, but the truth of the matter is this coaching staff does not manage what they have, so why let a GM buy groceries only to let this coaching staff let it spoil.

Fair weather, die hard. It really doesn't matter in the big scheme of things.
After all these years of watching football, I've come to realize that I'm a diehard football fan. The pure game has been diluded by the business. The Redskins business aspect is just not transparent enough for me to continue to be a "die hard" fan if you will.
dont even argue with Akh. it will lead you nowhere. of course, i will read it and be entertained, but it will lead nowhere.

Arch really didnt say much. he's been benched, he was not used like he was promised, he's been exposed in coverage, and he's probably retiring next year.

[American Soldier]

dont even argue with Akh. it will lead you nowhere. of course, i will read it and be entertained, but it will lead nowhere.

Arch really didnt say much. he's been benched, he was not used like he was promised, he's been exposed in coverage, and he's probably retiring next year.

There's a guy on my job that I rile up occasionally for giggles. He's so set in his ways that it's just fun to be objective. I remember using the Manchurian Candidate analogy a while back. The analogy was that people think a certain way regardless of what's obvious and that 's just the way it is. I know he's reading this which will probably get him even more riled up, but hey, it's my job. Don't get me wrong, I really don't agree with most of what he says.

[redwolf1218]

There's a guy on my job that I rile up occasionally for giggles. He's so set in his ways that it's just fun to be objective. I remember using the Manchurian Candidate analogy a while back. The analogy was that people think a certain way regardless of what's obvious and that 's just the way it is. I know he's reading this which will probably get him even more riled up, but hey, it's my job. Don't get me wrong, I really don't agree with most of what he says.
it's the same here, some people are easily provoked.

[akhhorus]

The reason I'm here is there's nothing else to do here at work but to get the "true fan" all riled up about nothing. The fact is there's nothing a 50 year or 5 year fan can do but speculate about the future of this team. I can only tell it like I’ve seen it in the past (whether last weeks fiasco, last year's playoff run or even the last SB victory). Either way it doesn't matter because right now this team sucks when you look at wins and losses (which is the only measuring tool you should use unless you're a fan of Pop Warner). Fair-weather or diehard fan can see that.
Based on the past Arch is in fact gone and that is what makes him the same as LA, LC, Pierce and Smoot. Other than that, I don’t see how showing similarities matters.

If the Redskins get a GM it will show that they listen to the crowd/media/fans, otherwise they would have had one already which adds to my view of the bad weather. Getting a GM means change. In other words a season of instability. Otherwise way get one?

The Bengals had something like 8 players get arrested this year. I'm sure their GM had something to do with picking these guys. They may not be the character guys Joe looks for, but they can play football. I'm not saying draft thugs but the only saints playing good football this year is in New Orleans.

I'm also not against a GM, but the truth of the matter is this coaching staff does not manage what they have, so why let a GM buy groceries only to let this coaching staff let it spoil.

Fair weather, die hard. It really doesn't matter in the big scheme of things.
After all these years of watching football, I've come to realize that I'm a diehard football fan. The pure game has been diluded by the business. The Redskins business aspect is just not transparent enough for me to continue to be a "die hard" fan if you will.

So, you admit you're just trolling for trouble, good to know. I hope your wish is granted.

There's a guy on my job that I rile up occasionally for giggles. He's so set in his ways that it's just fun to be objective. I remember using the Manchurian Candidate analogy a while back. The analogy was that people think a certain way regardless of what's obvious and that 's just the way it is. I know he's reading this which will probably get him even more riled up, but hey, it's my job. Don't get me wrong, I really don't agree with most of what he says.

If you think anything you've posted here has remotely riled me up, then you really don't understand me at all. Your posts are hilariously ridiculous and mysteriously sound very close in attitude and tone to a former poster here. You're about as correct and factual as that poster was too. All you are is a troll(which was obvious before you admitted it), this is why you come into every thread with a holier than thou attitude(much like the poster you mimic) and just post things you know are ridiculous just looking for trouble. I'm far from the only person who has noticed this and called you on your crap, which you conveniently run away from any real debate about when any of a dozen other posters here who have called you out on it. It wouldn't surprise me one bit that you're a fan of another team just looking to cause misery here, you certainly look for any excuse/reason to dump on the entire Skins organization. This is not to say that the skins have made mistakes, but your enthusiasm and zealousness for taking every possible shot at the skins, and abandoning them just because they're having a bad season makes me wonder if you were ever a fan of them.

[frankez99]

The Redskins need to use the classic line that other sports use when it comes to contracts:

"Terms of the deal were not disclosed"

If Arch wasn't making so much "publicized" money, then this would be no big deal.

On a side note:


Article could have benched Archuleta

Friday, Dec 29, 2006 11:45 am EST
Adam Archuleta

The safety with the richest contract in NFL history, Washington Redskins' Adam Archuleta, has not played on defense in seven weeks, which might stem from a critical story on the Redskins coaching staff by ESPN The Magazine.

"Do I deserve an explanation?" Archuleta said. "I don't know if an explanation matters anymore because what's done is done. I pretty much know what's going on. I pretty much know what it all stems from."

Tom Friend of ESPN The Magazine asked an unnamed Redskin player about defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, and the response was: "Arrogant. Thinks he invented the wheel."

Source: ESPN The Magazine

[redwolf1218]

The Redskins need to use the classic line that other sports use when it comes to contracts:

"Terms of the deal were not disclosed"

If Arch wasn't making so much "publicized" money, then this would be no big deal.

On a side note:


Article could have benched Archuleta

Friday, Dec 29, 2006 11:45 am EST
Adam Archuleta

The safety with the richest contract in NFL history, Washington Redskins' Adam Archuleta, has not played on defense in seven weeks, which might stem from a critical story on the Redskins coaching staff by ESPN The Magazine.

"Do I deserve an explanation?" Archuleta said. "I don't know if an explanation matters anymore because what's done is done. I pretty much know what's going on. I pretty much know what it all stems from."

Tom Friend of ESPN The Magazine asked an unnamed Redskin player about defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, and the response was: "Arrogant. Thinks he invented the wheel."

Source: ESPN The Magazine
i wonder what it all stems from...i mean i wonder what he means by that.

[NCskinsfanatic]

i wonder what it all stems from...i mean i wonder what he means by that.
I took it that he was the unamed source in the Tom friend article and GW knows it...but I could be wrong.

[Meatsnack]

...

You can put a ton of lipstick on a pig, and its still a pig. Arch was given every opportunity to improve on the field and failed, why should Williams keep him on the field just to hope and pray that he would get better instead of going with another player in the hopes that he can produce better than Arch?
Akh, I am not now nor have I ever argued that Arch played well or should start. What I said was that, if he has a beef, it is exactly the one stated in the article, i.e. that he has been made to stand in the corner and not speak or be spoken to. IF what he says is true, it is wrong. Coaches coach. Just like a player is wrong if he doesn't play hard on plays he doesn't like, coaches are wrong if they refuse to coach players they don't like.

[danny's stogie]

Akh, I am not now nor have I ever argued that Arch played well or should start. What I said was that, if he has a beef, it is exactly the one stated in the article, i.e. that he has been made to stand in the corner and not speak or be spoken to. IF what he says is true, it is wrong. Coaches coach. Just like a player is wrong if he doesn't play hard on plays he doesn't like, coaches are wrong if they refuse to coach players they don't like.

I think this offseason the Skins should sign a coach for every free agent they sign so that if the free agent struggles at least he'll have someone there to console them. Life coaches for all!

[akhhorus]

Akh, I am not now nor have I ever argued that Arch played well or should start. What I said was that, if he has a beef, it is exactly the one stated in the article, i.e. that he has been made to stand in the corner and not speak or be spoken to. IF what he says is true, it is wrong. Coaches coach. Just like a player is wrong if he doesn't play hard on plays he doesn't like, coaches are wrong if they refuse to coach players they don't like.

We don't know the story, we just have Arch's complaint. Thats not enough to condemn anyone on. If true, its not good. If not true, then this is Arch being bitter.

[danny's stogie]

The Redskins need to use the classic line that other sports use when it comes to contracts:

"Terms of the deal were not disclosed"

If Arch wasn't making so much "publicized" money, then this would be no big deal.

On a side note:


Article could have benched Archuleta

Friday, Dec 29, 2006 11:45 am EST
Adam Archuleta

The safety with the richest contract in NFL history, Washington Redskins' Adam Archuleta, has not played on defense in seven weeks, which might stem from a critical story on the Redskins coaching staff by ESPN The Magazine.

"Do I deserve an explanation?" Archuleta said. "I don't know if an explanation matters anymore because what's done is done. I pretty much know what's going on. I pretty much know what it all stems from."

Tom Friend of ESPN The Magazine asked an unnamed Redskin player about defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, and the response was: "Arrogant. Thinks he invented the wheel."

Source: ESPN The Magazine

I know the source cited things that happened before this season, but I also seem to recall Daniels or whoever it was saying that they knew who the snitch was and that player "wasn't around anymore". Could very well be Arch.

[danny's stogie]

In any organization that utilizes a skilled workforce (the NFL qualifies), managers are on the hook for developing staff.You don't invest tons of capital to bring in and assimilate an employee only to let him continue to suck.

In a team sport this is even more straight-forward. If you make the call to bring in a guy and he isn't what you thought or needs development to plug a hole, you partner with that person and fight like heck to bring them up to speed. The whole reason for this thread is that Arch maintains that he has been put in the corner and ignored. If it is true, and several sources have intimated as much, it points to several bad things:

1) CNY's arrogance, that a multimillion dollar asset has been cast aside and not developed
2) lack of respect for the organizations limited resources
3) inflexibility in finding a way to use Arch

Prior to crossing the Potomac, not one source ever claimed that Arch was the worst coverage safety on the planet or that his game stank on ice. Something about this team and the way they have decided to use him have made him look worse than he ever was before coming here. Is there something magic about crossing the Potomac? Doubtful.

Is Arch or any player on the hook for learning his responsibilites and playing assignment sound? Absolutely yes. Did Arch play badly? Absolutely. Is that a reason to ostracize him and refuse to coach him? Absolutely not.

This has been said before by others as well as me, the perfect storm of the injuries to Prioleau and Springs forced the coaches hand with Arch. What happened afterward, though, appears to have been handled badly.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but (in reference to what's bolded) how long do you stick with that employee that doesn't work, "fight like heck with them" if you will? Arch signed to start on defense, he lost his job by the end of training camp, he got his job back because of injury, then lost it again to a player signed off the street that apparently had a better grasp of the defense within just a few practices. Arch had all the chance in the world to show something and he never did, and by week 8 isn't it best if the coaches are devoting their efforts to players like Fox and Vincent and ST instead of a player like Arch that showed no improvement whatsoever? Should they be taking their time to individually coach up Arch and get him up to speed? Heck no. Ok, it would be nice if they waved and smiled into the mirror Arch is starry-eyed gazing into every once in a while, but what Arch is asking for, a straightfoward assessment of why he was benched is lunacy. He's flat out delusional if he doesn't know why he lost his job.

Furthermore, I think a lot of the motivation behind Arch's comments are to villify the coaching staff and try to restore some semblence of a positive image about his own ability. He's trying to turn this into the coaching staff's fault when he really should be pointing the finger at himself for not attending team workouts to get in-synce with the other DBs, his failure to learn the playcalling and playbook as evidenced by ST always trying to position him early in the season and in preseason, and his inabiliy to improve his coverage skills. The coaching staff might be at fault for some of his lack of improvement, but why is it that Arch is the one ousted, while a player like Fox continues to show improvement as the season goes on? This is also in such stark contrast to a player like Carter that struggled at first, but kept trying and has since beome extremely effective.

[American Soldier]

So, you admit you're just trolling for trouble, good to know. I hope your wish is granted.



If you think anything you've posted here has remotely riled me up, then you really don't understand me at all. Your posts are hilariously ridiculous and mysteriously sound very close in attitude and tone to a former poster here. You're about as correct and factual as that poster was too. All you are is a troll(which was obvious before you admitted it), this is why you come into every thread with a holier than thou attitude(much like the poster you mimic) and just post things you know are ridiculous just looking for trouble. I'm far from the only person who has noticed this and called you on your crap, which you conveniently run away from any real debate about when any of a dozen other posters here who have called you out on it. It wouldn't surprise me one bit that you're a fan of another team just looking to cause misery here, you certainly look for any excuse/reason to dump on the entire Skins organization. This is not to say that the skins have made mistakes, but your enthusiasm and zealousness for taking every possible shot at the skins, and abandoning them just because they're having a bad season makes me wonder if you were ever a fan of them.

I’m not trolling for trouble, but you can just call me Morgoth. It’s funny how you’re the only one dissecting my every word. So who’s the troll?
Everyone here has a right to speak on the Redskins in any fashion they like. I don’t recall any time that my view has been debated or even called on by anyone but you. I get on this site when I have time on my hands. If I see a post that is just plain close minded, I reply. It just so happens that most of those posts are yours. Taking shots at the skins is done by every media outlet except maybe George Michaels. There's a fine line between being optimistic in losing and just plain used to it. I hate losing! This team finds ways to lose (during the offseason and during the games). When this organization begins to "just play football" they'll give a purest something to cheer about. Until then, I may sound holier than thou? But hey, the truth will set you free!

[American Soldier]

I’m not trolling for trouble, but you can just call me Morgoth. It’s funny how you’re the only one dissecting my every word. So who’s the troll?
Everyone here has a right to speak on the Redskins in any fashion they like. I don’t recall any time that my view has been debated or even called on by anyone but you. I get on this site when I have time on my hands. If I see a post that is just plain close minded, I reply. It just so happens that most of those posts are yours. Taking shots at the skins is done by every media outlet except maybe George Michaels. There's a fine line between being optimistic in losing and just plain used to it. I hate losing! This team finds ways to lose (during the offseason and during the games). When this organization begins to "just play football" they'll give a purest something to cheer about. Until then, I may sound holier than thou? But hey, the truth will set you free!

This is the kind of thread that gets Morgoth going:
i don't want anyone from oakland, that team has a curse on it


The Redskins are blessed right?

[akhhorus]

I’m not trolling for trouble, but you can just call me Morgoth. It’s funny how you’re the only one dissecting my every word. So who’s the troll?
Everyone here has a right to speak on the Redskins in any fashion they like. I don’t recall any time that my view has been debated or even called on by anyone but you. I get on this site when I have time on my hands. If I see a post that is just plain close minded, I reply. It just so happens that most of those posts are yours. Taking shots at the skins is done by every media outlet except maybe George Michaels. There's a fine line between being optimistic in losing and just plain used to it. I hate losing! This team finds ways to lose (during the offseason and during the games). When this organization begins to "just play football" they'll give a purest something to cheer about. Until then, I may sound holier than thou? But hey, the truth will set you free!

In order:
-Thats not being a troll, a troll is someone who just posts looking to cause trouble. Something you've admitted to doing in this very thread.
-Then you have a very short memory, plenty of people have called you out on your crap. I'm hardly the only one.
-I find it hilarious that you do exactly what you claim to be fighting, please re-read your posts and objectively look at them. You're being exactly closed minded in your opinions. But it fits that you think you're being objective
-There's nothing wrong about criticizing. The skins deserve that. What they don't deserve is your sheer enjoyment in dumping on them. And as you admit, you're a fairweather fan. As I told you when you gave up on the skins a few weeks ago: if losing long or short term makes you want to give up, thats up to you-I could care less; but don't bother the rest of us with some backbone. Find another team to root for, we won't miss you.
-And thanks for sounding exactly like I described you.

[ryflan47]

Can we ditch Arch and keep his wife?

[The Game]

is arch going to be cut? The one thing the #4 overall defense that the raiders have missing is a safety who can play close to the line and blitz.

[The Game]

This is the kind of thread that gets Morgoth going:
i don't want anyone from oakland, that team has a curse on it


The Redskins are blessed right?


what does oakland have to do with that?

[PennSkinsFan]

is arch going to be cut? The one thing the #4 overall defense that the raiders have missing is a safety who can play close to the line and blitz.

Arch being cut is a given. Two reasons make this 100% certain. he has not played a defensive down and he lashed out and called the front office, aka Gibbs, a liar. Fate sealed. And we wll eat it. Which, please people remember this, this makes a Lloyd trade release nearly impossible for cap purposes.

[The Game]

Arch being cut is a given. Two reasons make this 100% certain. he has not played a defensive down and he lashed out and called the front office, aka Gibbs, a liar. Fate sealed. And we wll eat it. Which, please people remember this, this makes a Lloyd trade release nearly impossible for cap purposes.



damn, gibbs is a good coach too. i really like your rookie qb hes playing pretty good. you guys need to get a cover safety and another pass rusher and possibly another solid corner.