Archuleta

*RamJackson39* · #1 (**permalink**) -08-03-2006

I'm not convinced that letting Arch walk will be the best move. The guy was a playmaker until...Larry Marmie arrived. Even then he managed to make some amazing plays (forced fumble and TD against the Bucs in 04'). The guy has a nose for the football and is always one of the leaders in tackles. A lot of people didnt like his tackling. Dont forget, it's really hard to make a play when you are put out of position from the start (Larry Marmie) The entire defense stunk last season and Arch was one of the guys who kept it from being worse.

Tell me, what changed from 03'-05'? Arch was a playmaker in 03' on an opportunistic defense. He played closed to the line and terrorized QBs and RBs. In 04'-05' he played in coverage for most of the game and rarely saw the line of scrimmage. Ok, so he went from being used as a blitzing safety (his strongpoint) to being used mainly in coverage (his weakpoints) The change was Marmie.

I would do anything possible to bring back Arch. It's hard to find Strong Safeties that can be used like he can be. He's great when used near the line and is average when used mainly in coverage. I want him back. I expect him to return to his 03' form back in a scheme that doesnt have him playing FS from the SS position. I'd love to see him back in Blue and Gold.

**Nick** · #2 (**permalink**) -08-03-2006

Two things I'd mention. First, there was also a back injury which I'm not convinced he's 100% healed from. And two, to blame Arch's poor tackling on Marmie is a bit too much of an excuse, in my opinion. Many of the tackles I watched him miss were because he took poor angles to the ball carrier.

I dunno, I just haven't seen enough from him to consider him a must-have piece of this defensive puzzle. You said he's great near the line and average in coverage, but I'm not even sure he's that great in run support any more. He takes himself out of a number of plays by taking poor angles to the football and being overaggressive, and his open field tackling leaves something to be desired. And this is supposed to be the strength of his game, because he's average at best in coverage.

Don't get me wrong, because I believe Archuleta is a good starter in this league. He's definitely going to make more tackles than he misses, and he's a great blitzing safety. He's aggressive and will deliver the hit. But he's a bit one dimensional, and if someone put a gun to my head and asked me if he excels in run support, I'd have a hard time saying yes to the word "excels." I still maintain that Archuleta would be best utilized in a 46 defense that allows him to stay close to the line and uses more of his linebacker skills.

Just my two cents.

*RamJackson39* · #3 (**permalink**) -08-03-2006

Quote:

to blame Arch's poor tackling on Marmie is a bit too much of an excuse, in my opinion.

Oh, he missed plenty of tackles; as did Pickett, Tinoisamoa, Coakley, Kennedy, Little, Hargrove, and everyone else on the defense. Players will miss tackles and I think a lot of it is blown out of proportion. I remember in the Minnesota game (his first game back after the concussion) all you heard about was his missed tackles. Someone seemed to forget to mention that he led the team in tackles that day.

I also would put part of the blame. I think many members of the defense tried to do much more than they should have to compensate for the horrible scheme. Marmie is the same guy who tried to move Arch to FS; so I think it's pretty easy to say that

1.)Marmie was insane and had no clue what he was doing

2.)Was largely to blame for many of the problems in our defense last season; inlcuding poor tackling.

*chiguy* · #4 (**permalink**) -08-03-2006

When your team regularly gets gashed by back up running backs breaking long runs, I'd say it is not possible to blow tackling out of proportion.

And Nick really brings up the most valid point -- Arch just hasn't been the same since the back injury. He wasn't much in coverage before hand and he is worse in the run game since the injury. Maybe that will improve, maybe it won't, but I wouldn't want to invest a lot of money on him if I wasn't fairly confident one way or another.

*tomahawk247* · #5 (**permalink**) -08-03-2006

I love Arch, and i want him back.

Marmie tried to change Arch to play a certain position, where as i think Haslett will change the position to suit Arch. If he comes back to the Rams, he will have a good year.

*jkramsfan* · #6 (**permalink**) -08-03-2006

i agree with nick on this one,i dont think he will be back and i think we will upgrade at that position.

**Nick** · #7 (**permalink**) -08-03-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by RamJackson39

Players will miss tackles and I think a lot of it is blown out of proportion.

When the strong part of a guy's game is his ability to tackle and his skills in run support, and he starts to become more and more inconsistent in that aspect, then no, I don't believe it's being blown out of proportion.

If a guy takes bad angles, it's poor recognition on his part, not the coach's fault. Coaches can only do so much, and while I did not like a lot of what Marmie brought to the team (lack of aggression and creativity as well as poor sub packages), I don't think you can blame him for poor veteran tackling at all.

It's one thing if the guy is young and just hasn't developed yet. That's when I expect a coach to help bring a guy along. But Archuleta is a five year pro, and he'll turn 29 this season. He hasn't made significant (or even moderate) progress in his coverage abilities, and his tackling arguably has regressed.

At this point, I would be willing to sign a guy who isn't as good a tackler or blitzer as Arch but is better in coverage, because I think more and more in this league, you need guys who have a wide variety of skills and not just a specialization in one dimension of the game.

I've been kind of hesitant with the idea of going after Corey Chavous, and two weeks ago I was pretty undecided about it. But the more I think about it, the more I'm warming up to the idea of bringing him in under a moderate 2-3 year deal.

*RamsFan16* · #8 (**permalink**) -08-03-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick

Two things I'd mention. First, there was also a back injury which I'm not convinced he's 100% healed from. And two, to blame Arch's poor tackling on Marmie is a bit too much of an excuse, in my opinion. Many of the tackles I watched him miss were because he took poor angles to the ball carrier.

I dunno, I just haven't seen enough from him to consider him a must-have piece of this defensive puzzle. You said he's great near the line and average in coverage, but I'm not even sure he's that great in run support any more. He takes himself out of a number of plays by taking poor angles to the football and being overaggressive, and his open field tackling leaves something to be desired. And this is supposed to be the strength of his game, because he's average at best in coverage.

Don't get me wrong, because I believe Archuleta is a good starter in this league. He's definitely going to make more tackles than he misses, and he's a great blitzing safety. He's aggressive and will deliver the hit. But he's a bit one dimensional, and if someone put a gun to my head and asked me if he excels in run support, I'd have a hard time saying yes to the word "excels." I still maintain that Archuleta would be best utilized in a 46 defense that allows him to stay close to the line and uses more of his linebacker skills.

Just my two cents.

Agreed. Its definetly a players problem if he can't tackle not the Defensive Coordinators. If he can't take good angle its his fault. If he can't tackle at a good angle its his fault. No way is it the Defensive Coordinators.

*RamJackson39* · #9 (**permalink**) -09-03-2006

Quote:

Agreed. Its definetly a players problem if he can't tackle not the Defensive Coordinators. If he can't take good angle its his fault. If he can't tackle at a good angle its his fault. No way is it the Defensive Coordinators.

When the entire defense tackles poorly, something tells me that it's something besides just the players. Not one player on the Rams defense was a great tackler. I believe that when put out of position from the start, a defender has a hard time getting into good angles.

Tomahawk said it best...

Quote:

Marmie tried to change Arch to play a certain position, where as i think Haslett will change the position to suit Arch. If he comes back to the Rams, he will have a good year.

Arch is not a SS. He is a LB/SS. He has to be used in that role or else he will be ineffective. Guys that can be used like that are rare, and I think it would be a mistake to let him walk.

*chiguy* · #10 (**permalink**) -09-03-2006

Quote:

Arch is not a SS. He is a LB/SS.

Which is precisely why the missed tackles are a problem and cannot be "blown out of proportion."

*RamJackson39* · #11 (**permalink**) -10-03-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiguy

Which is precisely why the missed tackles are a problem and cannot be "blown out of proportion."

You forgot to quote this as well...

Quote:

He has to be used in that role or else he will be ineffective.

He wasnt used in that role, so he was ineffective.

**Nick** · #12 (**permalink**) -10-03-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by RamJackson39

He wasnt used in that role, so he was ineffective.

I guess I just don't see your point very well, because you're making it sound like Archuleta was an inconsistent tackler because he was being used at a specific position that for some reason asks players to not tackle well.

I don't care what role Archuleta was in - FS, SS, LB, waterboy. All of them are responsible for making tackles, for reading plays, for taking proper angles to the ball, etc etc.

Yes, you're right in saying that Archuleta wasn't the only player making mistakes, which is likely why we're going to see a number of new players on this defense in 2006. Others who are remaining still have upside and are relatively young. Archuleta will turn 29 this year, and I don't believe it's very realistic to think he's going to be anything more than what he is now at this point. And what that is, in my opinion, is a one-dimensional player who is sub par if not marginal in coverage and good yet inconsistent in his run support.

If you look at various scouting reports on Arch, they tend to highlight similar ideas:

TSN.ca (Canadian Sports Site): "Will take some bad angles when making open-field tackles."

ESPN: "...will whiff on some tackles and too often takes bad angles."

The Sporting News: "Can be too aggressive and lacks recognition skills. Misses some tackles going for the big hit."

I dunno, I didn't see any mention of Marmie in any of those three reports on Arch when I looked. And this doesn't even begin to address the back injury.

I think it's time to cut bait.

*RamJackson39* · #13 (**permalink**) -10-03-2006

Quote:

I dunno, I didn't see any mention of Marmie in any of those three reports on Arch when I looked. And this doesn't even begin to address the back injury.

It's always easier to blame the players. If Haslett wants to bring back Arch, then I think there's something there. He seems willing to let Pickett walk, but he's been vocal about bringing Arch back. That's enough to convince me that it's worth it.

Just watch the moments where Arch was used correctly. He was great. Use him in the correct scheme and he will be one of the best in the league.

*UtterBlitz* · #14 (**permalink**) -10-03-2006

Nick you are right, he is not perfect and he does not always make the tackle. I have seen him miss some tackles completely, which may be a result of a bad angle, or just plain bad tackling skills. I have also seen him avoid a tackle if it is close to the sidelines. I am sure the back injury has made him less aggresive than he was before it.

I think he will improve now that he is out from under the confused schemes that Marmie used. He still will miss some tackles when he overpursues, when he backs off, some due to poor angles, and some because he is not wrappng up the player.

I don't think he is the best safety out there, but I think he is worth keeping. The fact that Washington is considering him says good things about him since they are known for their defense.

*chiguy* · #15 (**permalink**) -10-03-2006

Quote:

It's always easier to blame the players. If Haslett wants to bring back Arch, then I think there's something there. He seems willing to let Pickett walk, but he's been vocal about bringing Arch back. That's enough to convince me that it's worth it.

There are a lot of reasons why Haslett might be willing to bring back Archuleta and not Pickett, starting with the fact that there are more quality DTs on the FA market than safeties. It also means that the team could use it's top draft pick on a LB or DE, rather than a S, which is what his NO teams had a history of doing.