Have We Seen The Last of Archuleta in a Skins Uniform?

I must be the only one left (beside Lloyd's mama) who thinks Lloyd still has upside and potential. I wouldn't give up on him just yet

You're not alone.

Count me in the 5% of Warpathers who don't hate this guy.

I must be the only one left (beside Lloyd's mama) who thinks Lloyd still has upside and potential. I wouldn't give up on him just yet

I'm with you, I like Lloyd and Patten. I like the receiving corps, I don't see the need to unload either of those guys. I think Lloyd needs an attitude adjustment, but he can play this game. He just needs to stop acting like such a prick when the team is playing poorly. As for Patten, the guy isn't bad. He wasn't bad for the Pats, I think the problem is over here, not with him. I don't think he was the answer at #2, but when you can put him in at #4, then you're doing pretty well. James Thrash is useful because he's a serviceable receiver and can play teams. The Skins need to worry about other positions than releasing receivers so that they can go get others to take their place.

we are not going to replace lloyd just yet invested to much in him and all those guys will be much better next year and recievers who can play special teams would be all right i guess but jimoh sellers and khary campbell are great special team playersWell, given Lloyd v Patten, you have two backups who don't play special teams. By virtue of age, I guess I'd keep Lloyd of the two, but it's really hurting us to be tying up two roster spots with crappy WRs who don't run down on teams and hit anyone.

You only keep 46 players active which means theres only 19 non specialist (K, P, QB, LS) backups active every week. If those 19, there needs to be 11 on kickoff cover teams, 10 on punt, punt return, and kick return teams, and 9 on FG/PAT. Last year we had starting safeties running down covering kicks (It ended Prioleau's season) because we can't get a damn receiver who doesn't play much offense to do it. That's a problem.

We need to fix this problem. I think Patten will be gone, and I'm not so sure about Lloyd, but if we have the cap space, I'd advocate his departure also.

I must be the only one left (beside Lloyd's mama) who thinks Lloyd still has upside and potential. I wouldn't give up on him just yet


nah i still love brandon lloyd

I think with El, Thrash, and Espy you'd have three receivers who play teams. Then the remaining receivers would be Moss and Lloyd. Three out of five WRs who play teams ain't bad.

I like Patten, but I'd let him go. Injuries and age are not playing in his favor.

I must be the only one left (beside Lloyd's mama) who thinks Lloyd still has upside and potential. I wouldn't give up on him just yetWell, he's still young, which is his advantage over Patten. I'm just not one to believe that the ability to block, run good routes, go fearlessly over the middle, and be a good special teams player can be developed at age 26.

I DO believe that his attitude problems will improve with age. But even if they do, and he becomes an outstanding person/citizen, you are still left with a below average NFL receiver.

I'm worried that my predjudices with the idiotic trade that brought him here may be affecting my perception of Lloyd the receiver, but I just can't see him improving to the point where he deserves a roster spot.

Archuleta's only issue is health. Lloyd's best case scenario is a glorified third wideout. If I'm going to hope for one guy to free up cap space for the future, why wouldn't it be Lloyd?

I think with El, Thrash, and Espy you'd have three receivers who play teams. Then the remaining receivers would be Moss and Lloyd. Three out of five WRs who play teams ain't bad.

I like Patten, but I'd let him go. Injuries and age are not playing in his favor.I would say to deserve a roster spot, a receiver who isn't starting must be able to play teams. At least, if I was building a roster, I'd take the player who could play teams over a slightly better WR would couldn't.

3/5 isn't horrible, and I wouldn't bet the farm that the 5th guy would be Espy.

But by virtue of age and contract, Patten probably has to go. I thought he was a great signing when we brought him in, but things just didn't work out.

Archuleta simply has to prove to me that he can still tackle. If he comes back next year and starts popping some heads, we don't have a better second safety option on this team. Worst case scenario, give the job to Prioleau and have an experienced backup.

.

The problem with AA as I remember it was not tackling. He was actually leading the team in tackles at the time of his demotion. Maybe he wasn't showing up regularily on you got jacked up but he was bringing guys down.

The problem was coverage. Not only could he not cover any TE's, but receivers routinely blew by him in the cover 2 set, where the safety's job is basically to not let anyone get behind him. That's why he got demoted. You can argue that the team wasn't using him right, and that's probably true, but it was his ability to zone cover in the cover 2 that was chiefly responsible for his removal from the starting lineup.

At least that's how I remember it.

The problem with AA as I remember it was not tackling. He was actually leading the team in tackles at the time of his demotion. Maybe he wasn't showing up regularily on you got jacked up but he was bringing guys down.

The problem was coverage. Not only could he not cover any TE's, but receivers routinely blew by him in the cover 2 set, where the safety's job is basically to not let anyone get behind him. That's why he got demoted. You can argue that the team wasn't using him right, and that's probably true, but it was his ability to zone cover in the cover 2 that was chiefly responsible for his removal from the starting lineup.

At least that's how I remember it.Either way, it seems to be a product of an undisclosed injury. It will come together if he's healthy. If he's never going to be healthy again, thats a different story.

Either way, it seems to be a product of an undisclosed injury. It will come together if he's healthy. If he's never going to be healthy again, thats a different story.

So does that mean that we signed this guy before making sure he was 100% healthy? If we gave him that contract without knowing if he was healthy or not would make our FO look bad (Not like it hasn't already).

I hope its simply because he doesn't fit the scheme.