Results 16 to 25 of 25
Im getting more and more used to seeing Arch in a different uniform next year, especially since he was supposed to be seeing the Redskins right at the start of FA. He was my favourite Rams defender by far at a point, and it will be sad to see him go, but he cant get it done anymore. I dont think the missed tackles and blown coverages etc are worth the one or two great plays a year.
It was just lucky i didnt buy myself an Archuleta jersey like i was going to. Il be getting a Tinoisamoa one instead
-03-10-2006 #17Milan Guest
I want him back as well, give him a shot in another defense that isn't confusing, if he screws up, then you can release him. He was good with the old DC and bad with the new DC.
In tackles, last year, he was nowhere near how many he had in 2003, but in sacks he has 1 more and the same amount of interceptions. This is the same old Archuleta, and imagine how many sacks he'd have if he blitzed more.
Re: ArchuletaOriginally Posted by Milan
-03-10-2006 #19Milan Guest
So explain to me how the starting SS in the Probowl had 3 interceptions or how Brian Dawkins who made the Pro-bowl only had 3 inteceptions or how another SS that made the probowl, Mike Brown only had 3 interceptions?
They each had 2 more Ints. than Archuleta, who played only 11 games.
Only one had the same amount of sacks, the rest had fewer.
Roy Williams had 11 more tackles than Arch.
Mike Brown had 2 more tackles than Arch.
Brain Dawkins had 7 more tackles than Arch.
Those Numbers are pretty close, and Archuleta had only 11 fewer tackles than Williams despite playing 5 less games.
Had 7 fewer tackles than Dawkins despite playing 5 games.
And Mike Brown was in for one more game and got Two more tackles.
Those were the most dominant Safeties in the NFC (All in the Pro Bowl)
One thing archuleta was a lot worse than them was Forced Fumbles.
Brain Dawkins had 4 More Forced Fumbles than Arch.
Mike Brown had 1 More Forced Fumble than Arch.
Roy Williams had 3 More Forced Fumbles than Arch.
Now for PDs, Mike Brown had one more than Arch in one more game.
Dawkins was a Beast with 20+ last season
Roy Williams had 5 more in 5 more games.
Last edited by Milan; -03-10-2006 at 02:45 PM.
How many of those guys missed tackles at the same rate as Archuleta? How many of them regularly got burned in cover?
He's was a pretty good safety before the injury. Since the injury he's been mediocre. I, for one, wouldn't spend a lot of money to keep him around.
-03-11-2006 #21RamJackson39 Guest
Re: ArchuletaHow many of those guys missed tackles at the same rate as Archuleta? How many of them regularly got burned in cover?
Also, Milan brings up a good points. Although Arch missed some tackles, he was still one of the better safeties in the league statwise; even though he missed 5games.Thats great production and I would be willing to put out a nice amount of cash for it.
Re: ArchuletaOriginally Posted by RamJackson39
The strong safety is called the strong safety because he lines up on the strong side of the play, which is determined by where the tight end is. The strong safety is typically the man responsible for covering the tight end or a running back, but in some schemes such as the Cover/Tampa 2, the strong safety also plays a lot of deep zone.
Yes, you want your strong safety to be good against the run because he's often lined up closer to the line of scrimmage, but I really think it would be inaccurate to minimalize their coverage responsibilities like you seem to be doing.
Originally Posted by RamJackson39
Season A: 13 games played, 79 tackles, 5 sacks, 1 interception
Season B: 14 games played, 70 tackles, 3.5 sacks, 1 interception, 1 defensive touchdown.
Similar, no? Well, "A" was Arch's 2003 season under Lovie, and "B" was Arch's 2005 season under Marmie. According to your first post, Arch was a playmaker in 2003. But under Marmie, he put up similar numbers. Interesting that the difference numbers-wise really isn't that big at all.
Missed *some* tackles? Honestly, after watching the likes of Ryan Moats and other back ups regularly stomp our defense by breaking tackles, I'm not sure I'm willing to accept *any* missed tackles. Do you want to fix the defense or not? If you do, you have to start by finding guys who can wrap up.
And as much as we get burned by TEs, I'm not sure why you want to pretend that the SS has no coverage responsibilities. He has more than a LB does...he's a defensive back for goodness' sake.
-03-11-2006 #24Milan Guest
Well apparantly he can wrap up, he can wrap up 70 guys and send them to the turf.
I got to see maybe 4 rams games because they weren't aired, can you all specify where and when he missed tackles?
I mean, if he did get 70 tackles in 14 games, then he probably didn't miss too many.
Last edited by Milan; -03-11-2006 at 10:41 AM.
The Rams had to rank near the bottom in the league in big runs. Guess who is responsible for making sure that good runs don't become breakaway runs?
Sheer number of tackles can be misleading. Some teams are so bad on defense that they have artificially inflated tackle statistics simply because they see more plays. If I get bored, I'll look up the info...but I ain't bored yet.
OTOH, I saw every single Ram game this year and I know I watched a lot of guys whiff on tackles. Arch was one of them. If you haven't really seen him play, how can you be so vociferous in saying we should resign him?
It's all a moot point anyway. The staff agreed with me.