Disillusioned Front Office: Surprised??

[Redskinswhoopass]

I really don't think Dock is going to be all that good, London Flecther is a strecth but look at Derrick Brooks, amd Hardy Nickerson and they were still really good beofer they retired.

And Bringing Smoot back was a great idea, this is the best place for him to come back to form.

[TLusby]

That's what they said about Zach Thomas and Fletcher is even better!

[HateYanksDukeCowboys]

You're a wuss. "mommy, the mean man used sarcasm to deflate my sense of self-righteousness." At least I'm obvious.

its a matter of sophistication. if you disagree with someone, tell them so. then explain why. sarcasm is a veil when one lacks an argument. i.e.---sarcasm as a personal attack is wuss-like in and of itself. be a man, come straight forward.

[boobiemiles]

This is Dock that we are talking about?????? I know we need stability but 7 mill a year??!!!! 7 million for a guard. 3 years at 12 mill sounded good to me, damn talk about getting blown out the water.

[NavyDave]

It was a nice signing not a great signing.

Fletcher's stats with the Bills do not transfer over to the skins so all of the praise of what he did in Buffalo doesn't mean squat once he dons the burgundy and gold.

Hopefully he continues to be durable and solid as a player.

He does need an upgrade on the defensive line for him to operate also.

[JRAB]

He does need an upgrade on the defensive line for him to operate also.

I agree. With the same defensive line we had last year, Fletcher would be hamstrung just like the LB's we had last year.

He's good, but he needs some help from the DL just like all 4-3 LB's do.

Which leads me to say that with a better DL, the LB's from last year would do a better job as well.

[superozman]

100+ tackles in his sleep!

[cphil006]

the difference between Deion Sanders, Bruce Smith, and Mark Carrier with London Fletcher is that Fletcher is still productive and deserving of a starting job WHEN WE SIGN HIM.

BTW we signed Fletcher to a much more modest deal than the others.

I think we win with this move.

[Bang]

OK, i won't come out and call the original poster an idiot.

Let's just say your acumen in this area is severely lacking.

Fletcher has never had any significant injuries. He's not missed a game in 103 straight starts. He's averaged 143.5 tackles over the last five seasons, and over the last seven seasons, he leads the entire NFL in tackles.

SO, he can play. That much is obvious, even to one lacking acumen in this area.. He's healthy, and that much is obvious, also to one lacking knowledge of the situation.

He played for five years under Gregg Williams, and has been the defensive captain in Buffalo since his first day there. He knows our defense, because he's played in it since 2000. He will call the signals for our defense with little to NO time to have to learn anything new.

As to his age, check it. Fletcher is 31 and it's his tenth year coming up. Conversely, Brian Urlacher is 29 and it will be his 8th year. Someone is going to tell me that to a man who has never been injured that two year difference is THAT significant? You'll have to explain that one to me.

Do we need 5 years to find our next young MLB? No, we don't. But thanks to the stability Fletcher will provide, we now have likely 3 years to watch MLBs develop and go for his replacement without the spectre of desperation hanging over us. We can be patient, start scouting and when the time and player are right, make our choice to groom.

Obviously, all of this is counting on him not getting hurt. There's no guarantee for any player against that, no matter how old he is.

If Fletcher was 31 and had had a knee injury or two, or had a nagging pull problem, I'd be more leery. But he hasn't. The guy is as healthy now as the day he was drafted.

There are no absolutes in football. It's a fluid business, and you have to flow with it. Almost NO player is a long term solution for anyone. Players move. Players leave. Players get hurt.

YES the FO has made terrible mistakes, but all you can do is move forward and do your best to rectify them or at least put yourself in position to get better. By bringing in Fletcher the ghost of Pierce is exorcised. Fletcher provides us with the leadership the defense has needed. He provides us with sure tackling ability, something else we've needed. He is a true MLB< not some guy playing out of position. And his stamina and ability buys us plenty of time to find his eventual replacement.

So, as you can see, even when lacking the necessary eyes to see these things, they are indeed there.

~Bang

[HateYanksDukeCowboys]

OK, i won't come out and call the original poster an idiot.

Let's just say your acumen in this area is severely lacking.

Fletcher has never had any significant injuries. He's not missed a game in 103 straight starts. He's averaged 143.5 tackles over the last five seasons, and over the last seven seasons, he leads the entire NFL in tackles.

SO, he can play. That much is obvious, even to one lacking acumen in this area.. He's healthy, and that much is obvious, also to one lacking knowledge of the situation.

He played for five years under Gregg Williams, and has been the defensive captain in Buffalo since his first day there. He knows our defense, because he's played in it since 2000. He will call the signals for our defense with little to NO time to have to learn anything new.

As to his age, check it. Fletcher is 31 and it's his tenth year coming up. Conversely, Brian Urlacher is 29 and it will be his 8th year. Someone is going to tell me that to a man who has never been injured that two year difference is THAT significant? You'll have to explain that one to me.

Do we need 5 years to find our next young MLB? No, we don't. But thanks to the stability Fletcher will provide, we now have likely 3 years to watch MLBs develop and go for his replacement without the spectre of desperation hanging over us. We can be patient, start scouting and when the time and player are right, make our choice to groom.

Obviously, all of this is counting on him not getting hurt. There's no guarantee for any player against that, no matter how old he is.

If Fletcher was 31 and had had a knee injury or two, or had a nagging pull problem, I'd be more leery. But he hasn't. The guy is as healthy now as the day he was drafted.

There are no absolutes in football. It's a fluid business, and you have to flow with it. Almost NO player is a long term solution for anyone. Players move. Players leave. Players get hurt.

YES the FO has made terrible mistakes, but all you can do is move forward and do your best to rectify them or at least put yourself in position to get better. By bringing in Fletcher the ghost of Pierce is exorcised. Fletcher provides us with the leadership the defense has needed. He provides us with sure tackling ability, something else we've needed. He is a true MLB< not some guy playing out of position. And his stamina and ability buys us plenty of time to find his eventual replacement.

So, as you can see, even when lacking the necessary eyes to see these things, they are indeed there.

~Bang

he who ignores history is doomed to repeat it. i would say that's reflective of a lack of acumen.

For starters, my acumen tells me that Fletcher will be 32 when the season starts, not 31, as your acumen may have said. below are just a couple examples requiring a set of eyes, as well as cognitive ability to understand the implications:

- Ken Harvey, retired at the age of 33 after 11 durable seasons.

- Andre Tippett, retired at the age of 34 after 11 durable seasons

- Wilbur Marshall, retired at the age of 33 after 12 durable seasons

- Lawrence Taylor, retired at the age of 31 after 13 durable seasons

- Neal Olkewicz, retired at the age of 32 after 12 durable seasons

again, i never said he wasn't good...........i actually said that he IS good. apparently your eyes did not see this. My eyes and acumen tell me that even the best and most durable linebackers start to fade in their early to mid thirties (see above). i think its interesting when one challenges facts and their merit. is it idiocy? no, i wouldn't say that.

[Passizle]

again, i never said he wasn't good...........i actually said that he IS good.

Actually you did not. You said that Fletcher was too old and too small to play the position. Any person of average inteligence would look at that and draw the conclusion that you think he is not good.

You have your opinion and you are entitled. But from what I have read here, you are the only person on the forum that is against this signing.

Who did you have in mind?

[HateYanksDukeCowboys]

Actually you did. You said that Fletcher was too old and too small to play the position. Any person of average inteligence would look at that and draw the conclusion that you think he is not good.

You have your opinion and you are entitled. But from what I have read here, you are the only person on the forum that is against this signing.

Who did you have in mind?

go back and read it geeze. i said verbatim: "he's small and old." both of which i might add, are true. where did i use the word "too?" others have posted in this thread that 245 lbs is NOT small. people, he is a MIDDLE linebacker. the avg size for this position is 250-280 lbs. 245 is most definitely on the SMALL end of the scale.

and there are actually other posters who agree with me, just go read the London Fletcher fills a void thread.

i would expect a person of average intelligence to infer that the combination of small and old in a physcially demanding position such as MLB would mean that a breakdown is not only inevitable, but imminent. i apologize if that wasn't more clear.

[Bang]

he who ignores history is doomed to repeat it. i would say that's reflective of a lack of acumen.

For starters, my acumen tells me that Fletcher will be 32 when the season starts, not 31, as your acumen may have said. below are just a couple examples requiring a set of eyes, as well as cognitive ability to understand the implications:

- Ken Harvey, retired at the age of 33 after 11 durable seasons.

- Andre Tippett, retired at the age of 34 after 11 durable seasons

- Wilbur Marshall, retired at the age of 33 after 12 durable seasons

- Lawrence Taylor, retired at the age of 31 after 13 durable seasons

- Neal Olkewicz, retired at the age of 32 after 12 durable seasons

again, i never said he wasn't good...........i actually said that he IS good. apparently your eyes did not see this. My eyes and acumen tell me that even the best and most durable linebackers start to fade in their early to mid thirties (see above). i think its interesting when one challenges facts and their merit. is it idiocy? no, i wouldn't say that.

Who is ignoring history?

Note when i said the NFL is fluid,, you have to go with how the flow goes.

Now ,we could all sit back and have yet more crocodile tears over Antonio Pierce, or we can move forward. (Not like there's really a choice in the matter, is there?)

In moving forward, there is not a better option available to us at this time.

Is this difficult to see? It is only if your eyes are continually looking backwards.

"London Fletcher: he's small and old. last i checked, not a good combination for ANY football player......much less, a middle linebacker."

How silly of me. Of course what you're saying is "he's good". I must have just read it wrong. Funny thing, it almost looked like you were saying he's too old and small to play the position.

No one is expecting any more than 2-3 years out of him. How you can't see that it buys us time in a position of desperate need to find an adequate replacement is beyond me.

~Bang

[HateYanksDukeCowboys]

Who is ignoring history?

Note when i said the NFL is fluid,, you have to go with how the flow goes.

Now ,we could all sit back and have yet more crocodile tears over Antonio Pierce, or we can move forward. (Not like there's really a choice in the matter, is there?)

In moving forward, there is not a better option available to us at this time.

Is this difficult to see? It is only if your eyes are continually looking backwards.

"London Fletcher: he's small and old. last i checked, not a good combination for ANY football player......much less, a middle linebacker."

How silly of me. Of course what you're saying is "he's good". I must have just read it wrong. Funny thing, it almost looked like you were saying he's too old and small to play the position.

No one is expecting any more than 2-3 years out of him. How you can't see that it buys us time in a position of desperate need to find an adequate replacement is beyond me.

~Bang

why sign him for five then? looking backwards tells me this will mean cap implications. silly me, i thought that was a bad thing. i guess i should only be fluid and look forward....

also, i'm guessing you've read my follow-up posts where i did, in fact, write that i thought he was good. i believe your feigning ignorance to this fact to support your point.

[Bang]

why sign him for five then? looking backwards tells me this will mean cap implications. silly me, i thought that was a bad thing. i guess i should only be fluid and look forward....

also, i'm guessing you've read my follow-up posts where i did, in fact, write that i thought he was good. i believe your feigning ignorance to this fact to support your point.

Because signing him for five allows them to spread out the bonus money and defer much of the salary to the back end of the deal. This makes it cap friendly. You don't have to look backwards to see that. Unless it's a one year deal, a player is almost always signed to more years than he's expected to be with the team and in almost every case, 2/3rds of the 'salary' figure is lumped into the final 2-3 years (depending on contract length.)

This is basic NFL contract structure 101. For example, you think Dockery is actually going to play 7 years for Buffalo before they ask him to renegotiate? You thought Brunell was expected to fulfill his seven year deal? You can look at these contracts and practically pinpoint the year the player will be asked to re-do the thing or be let go. 7 years is the maximum a contract can be written for under current rules, so they do it, and spread that bonus cap hit out over the length of the deal. (signing bonuses are paid up front, in cash, and for cap purposes are equally pro-rated over the length of the contract. this is why players usually are happy to renegotiate, because it takes 'salary' money from the back end of the deal and converts it to bonus money that they get in cash. The team benefits because the deal is typically extended a few years and allows them to defer that new bonus cap figure over the new length of the deal.)

The deal Fletcher got is very modest considering the level the bar is being set by the rest of the league right now. By the time his cap figures begin to balloon we should have our next MLB in house, or at least know where we're going to get him. If we don't, well, chalk that up as another mistake, because Fletcher buys them the time to do just that.

If you wrote later that he was good, I apparently have missed it. Your original post suggests the opposite. Please pardon my 'acumen' comments.

~Bang

[HateYanksDukeCowboys]

Because signing him for five allows them to spread out the bonus money and defer much of the salary to the back end of the deal. This makes it cap friendly. You don't have to look backwards to see that. Unless it's a one year deal, a player is almost always signed to more years than he's expected to be with the team and in almost every case, 2/3rds of the 'salary' figure is lumped into the final 2-3 years (depending on contract length.)

This is basic NFL contract structure 101. For example, you think Dockery is actually going to play 7 years for Buffalo before they ask him to renegotiate? You thought Brunell was expected to fulfill his seven year deal? You can look at these contracts and practically pinpoint the year the player will be asked to re-do the thing or be let go. 7 years is the maximum a contract can be written for under current rules, so they do it, and spread that bonus cap hit out over the length of the deal. (signing bonuses are paid up front, in cash, and for cap purposes are equally pro-rated over the length of the contract. this is why players usually are happy to renegotiate, because it takes 'salary' money from the back end of the deal and converts it to bonus money that they get in cash. The team benefits because the deal is typically extended a few years and allows them to defer that new bonus cap figure over the new length of the deal.)

The deal Fletcher got is very modest considering the level the bar is being set by the rest of the league right now. By the time his cap figures begin to balloon we should have our next MLB in house, or at least know where we're going to get him. If we don't, well, chalk that up as another mistake, because Fletcher buys them the time to do just that.

If you wrote later that he was good, I apparently have missed it. Your original post suggests the opposite. Please pardon my 'acumen' comments.

~Bang

i agree that this is a modest deal. however, even if the large portions of the contract are lumped into the later years, the team would still take a hit (shawn springs for example) by cutting the guy before the end of the term...........and as a rule, i can't stand taking a hit on the cap for a guy not currently on the team.

although major league baseball doesn't have a cap, i think the O's are STILL paying albert belle, and the izards are still paying Gar Heard. i am just throwing that in there as a joke by the way, before anyone thinks i'm comparing baseball and basketball to football (which i'm not).

[Taylor 36]

Fletch was a good signing and at a great price. Enough said.

[Lowghost]

go back and read it geeze. i said verbatim: "he's small and old." both of which i might add, are true. where did i use the word "too?" others have posted in this thread that 245 lbs is NOT small. people, he is a MIDDLE linebacker. the avg size for this position is 250-280 lbs. 245 is most definitely on the SMALL end of the scale.

and there are actually other posters who agree with me, just go read the London Fletcher fills a void thread.

i would expect a person of average intelligence to infer that the combination of small and old in a physcially demanding position such as MLB would mean that a breakdown is not only inevitable, but imminent. i apologize if that wasn't more clear.

You do know AP is 6-1, 238 lbs, and 28 yrs old. Using your logic he is undersized also.

I wish he was still on the team, but he is not. I am glad we signed Fletcher, even though he is only 5-11 and only 245 lbs.

[HateYanksDukeCowboys]

You do know AP is 6-1, 238 lbs, and 28 yrs old. Using your logic he is undersized also.

I wish he was still on the team, but he is not. I am glad we signed Fletcher, even though he is only 5-11 and only 245 lbs.

yes, i did know that, and yes i wish he was still on the team too.............and yes, if we were to re-sign Pierce 4 years from now when he's 32 years old, i'd say the same thing about him as i've said about fletcher.

[HateYanksDukeCowboys]

I just wanted to say that so far, I'm outstandingly wrong in my initial opinion/stance regarding London Fletcher. Nice job moron.

[CAP'NCHAOS]

wow, that's refreshing