Archuleta traded to Bears for 6th round pick

I don't think Arch was ever "ours" really. And secondly, do you really still feel that way after the moves we've made these past few months?

Arch was "ours" when we gave more money the NFL has ever seen given to a safety. You certainly dont give a guy that kind of money and say he may or may not work out.

Yes. Take Smoot for example, he's basically let go to Minn by the skins because someone else can come in and do the job. Turns out he really is needed here so they turn around and bring him back.

Ok I guess. But what about re-signing Jansen last year? Then Betts, Sellers, Yoder, Wade, Fox, Jimoh?

I will give you Clark but I would have goen with Chris Hope not Arch in last year free agent pool! Pierce is the big one here and should have never let him get away! As for Barrow a total miss just as Arrington was for the Giants so that is a wash. Arrington when he left the Skins had nothing left in the tank! For Carter to pay off we will need another big time DE like when we had C.Mann and D.Manley! I just wish we could draft Anderson and get Ian Scott at DT in free agency. But we have little in draft picks and cap room!

I dont see how its a wash. We let someone go who is a probowler, replaced him with a guy that never saw the field, then replaced him with a guy who was / is out of position and now had to overpay for a 32 mlb. its not wash. LaVar didn't play middle. fact is we dont pay our own, but have no problems throwing millions at other teams players.

I dont see how its a wash. We let someone go who is a probowler, replaced him with a guy that never saw the field, then replaced him with a guy who was / is out of position and now had to overpay for a 32 mlb. its not wash. LaVar didn't play middle. fact is we dont pay our own, but have no problems throwing millions at other teams players.

Who are you talking about?

Who are you talking about?


Pierce. we let him go, tried to replace him with a washed up Barrow, pulled Marshall out of position, then overpaid for Fletcher. We could have wrapped up one of our own players (pierce) for less than what it is costing us with Fletcher. Now we have a probowl LB playing against us twice a year. A very good thinking, intense, tackling machine.

Considering the insane contracts being dealt out this offseason I think Fletcher was a very fair deal... certainly a better deal than what the Dolphins gave Porter.

Pierce. we let him go, tried to replace him with a washed up Barrow, pulled Marshall out of position, then overpaid for Fletcher. We could have wrapped up one of our own players (pierce) for less than what it is costing us with Fletcher. Now we have a probowl LB playing against us twice a year. A very good thinking, intense, tackling machine.

You have every right to complain, but if you're going to then you should get your facts straight. Michael Barrow got injured and Antonio Pierce stepped in admirably in his role earning him a well-deserved contract. We did not replace Pierce with Barrow. We "replaced" Pierce with Marshall who, while Pierce was stepping in for Barrow, was stepping in quite well for Arrington when he got hurt.

pwnage by SS

You have every right to complain, but if you're going to then you should get your facts straight. Michael Barrow got injured and Antonio Pierce stepped in admirably in his role earning him a well-deserved contract. We did not replace Pierce with Barrow. We "replaced" Pierce with Marshall who, while Pierce was stepping in for Barrow, was stepping in quite well for Arrington when he got hurt.

OK. thought barrow was brought in to replace Pierce. my mistake.

You have every right to complain, but if you're going to then you should get your facts straight. Michael Barrow got injured and Antonio Pierce stepped in admirably in his role earning him a well-deserved contract. We did not replace Pierce with Barrow. We "replaced" Pierce with Marshall who, while Pierce was stepping in for Barrow, was stepping in quite well for Arrington when he got hurt.

Throw Barrow (another bad choice) out of the equation if you want to. I think the general premise is that we could have stayed with Pierce at middle linebacker without having to pay a 5-year, $25 million dollar contract to a 32 year old guy this year.

I know many are tired of hearing about it, but letting Pierce go was just another spoke in a very large wheel of bad personnel moves by this franchise. Fletcher could turn out to be a big help for us, and for the record, I was in support of his signing. Still, I don't know how anyone could rationally argue that we're better off cap-wise, and youth-wise with Fletcher than we would have with Pierce.