Bears Release Adam Archuleta
by WCG
on May 6, 2008 8:23 PM CDT
Perhaps the Bears like rookie safety Craig Steltz more than they let on. Today they might have helped pave his way to a starting job.
The Bears have released safety Adam Archuleta .
With the Bears, Archuleta struggled in run support and pass coverage. He broke his hand in a Week 3 loss to the Dallas Cowboys, sat out one game, and then returned the following week. He eventually lost his starting job in late November to Brandon McGowan.
In his lone season in Chicago, Archuleta failed to revert to the form he displayed in St. Louis when Bears coach Lovie Smith and defensive coordinator Bob Babich were Rams assistants.
After an absolutely horrible season last year, the only thing that might have saved his spot was if the Bears could not find somebody they thought could come in and start. Between Danieal Manning, Mike Brown, Kevin Payne and Craig Steltz they must have decided they had the guns to do so.
0 recs |
29
comments
| Add your comment
Read Related
EmailComments
I was so excited when we got him
He was so good in st louis and in washington he was put on an island and built up to fail, so I thought him coming here was going to be awesome but then well we all know what happened and now all I can do is think what could have been.
"snuffalufagus fucks my shit up"
by leopoldjones on
May 6, 2008 8:56 PM CDT
reply
0 recs
that back injury
effectively ended his career. he was never the same player.
by guy incognito on
May 6, 2008 10:51 PM CDT
reply
0 recs
Remember that time
when you posted a blog about how the “Bears like what they see in Steltz” (you know, the one directly preceeding this one)? He received glowing praise. How much more could they let on? Perhaps “Steltz participates in VP circle jerk”?
by mikebdot on
May 7, 2008 7:59 AM CDT
reply
0 recs
Chris Harris
Man, what a mistake all of this was! I think this is even worse than drafting Benson. Everyone thought Benson was going to be at least solid. But, we already HAD a very good starting safety and we got rid of him in favor of Archuleta? Ugh.
by bfos7215 on
May 7, 2008 8:24 AM CDT
reply
0 recs
Last year's off-season was a joke.
Other than Olsen, a complete waste.
by tyger1147 on
May 7, 2008 10:14 AM CDT
up
reply
0 recs
Harris - Poor Fundementals
1) “Poor Tackling” – lunching – too many incidents of not braking down and setting up to make a solid, sure tackle not a good hit.
2) Remember the long touchdown by Bush in the play-off game? For a safety it’s called inside out coverage. (often used for outside contain when the corner is occupied by a wide-out). He tried to cover by going underneath instead of over the top. Covering a back with Bush’s speed you need to use the over the top method – allow a small gain or maybe a 1st down but prevent the big play.
That why trading Harris was the correct move. Steltz will be the man!
by phastphil on
May 7, 2008 10:48 AM CDT
up
reply
0 recs
I need an Editor!
“Breaking down” – not braking down
and
“That’s” why trading Harris was the correct move.
by phastphil on
May 7, 2008 10:59 AM CDT
up
reply
0 recs
thankyou
everyone is always talking about what a mistake it was to let him go, but he sucked ass last year, not as bad as arch did this year but still pretty bad.
"snuffalufagus fucks my shit up"
by leopoldjones on
May 7, 2008 11:00 AM CDT
up
reply
0 recs
yeah
he was also a rook who hit like very few safeties are capable of in this league. you can teach a guy things like tackling technique and ways to better read the coverage. can’t teach a guy to hit like that.
besides, he shouldn’t have been in the free safety slot in the first place, harris is a strong safety if i ever saw one.
by lopey986 on
May 7, 2008 12:51 PM CDT
up
reply
0 recs
Not at the Pro level
This is one of my pet peeves! Pro players make basic fundamental errors that if I would have made the same mistake in High School I would have rather run off to the other teams sidelines than face my coach – think Mike Ditka.
by phastphil on
May 7, 2008 2:05 PM CDT
up
reply
0 recs
Plus
The reason the the position is called “Safety” is because you have to be the surest tackler on the team – not the hardest hitter – that’s for linebackers . It’s nice if the safety his a hitter, but he has to make the tackle every time – no excuses.
by phastphil on
May 7, 2008 2:11 PM CDT
up
reply
0 recs
True
And Harris would have been the best tackler at that position last year after week 1, regardless of whatever mistake he may make here and there.
by bfos7215 on
May 7, 2008 2:31 PM CDT
up
reply
0 recs
That's cool.
I don’t think Harris was going to be a corner-stone or anything. I just think it was a major mistake to let him go in favor of Archuleta, who the rest of the league had figured out was worthless.
by bfos7215 on
May 7, 2008 4:04 PM CDT
up
reply
0 recs
my major
gripe about the harris deal was that i felt we let him go too soon. we didn’t wait to see if we were hit with injuries (shoulda known brown would go down) or to see if any other teams were hit with injuries and we could maybe get a little more outta them for him.
by lopey986 on
May 8, 2008 2:24 AM CDT
up
reply
0 recs
we had
to cut him or else we would have had 6 safeties on our roster. Perhaps if we didn’t draft Kevin Payne, then this would be a valid point. They gambled on Archuleta and lost. I really think his broken hand caused him a lot of problems. He was pretty solid in the San Diego and Kansas City games. Broken bones in your hands and feet are no good and take forever to heal.
by mikebdot on
May 8, 2008 8:14 AM CDT
up
reply
0 recs
So he's not an HOFer?
Is there a safety in the league that doesn’t blow any particular play? Bottom line, Harris would have been a starting safety on our team for most of the year in 2007. Steltz may end up being better and it doesn’t end up being a big deal. But, for last year, it certainly was. And, it does no good for our depth this year.
by bfos7215 on
May 7, 2008 11:32 AM CDT
up
reply
0 recs
Chris Harris
was let go because Kevin Payne impressed the coaches. AA was brought in as an insurance policy for Mike Brown. If Kevin Payne doesn’t get hurt, our safety situation last season would have been much better. I’m sick of hearing about Chris freakin’ Harris. He’s an ok player, but not someone who would have made an impact last season.
by mikebdot on
May 7, 2008 12:38 PM CDT
up
reply
0 recs
Harris
He would have started for most of the season. That’s an impact.
Harris was traded because the coaches had him behind Brown, Manning, and Archuleta. Payne was only a factor in that the coaches felt he’d represent suitable depth. He wasn’t ahead of Harris on the depth charts. Neither was McGowan.
Had Archuleta not been signed, Harris would have stayed, started and been a major improvement to a defense that was notable awful against the run.
Now, we are counting on a rookie to fill that gap if Brown can’t be a starter all year. Maybe it will work. Hope it does. But, that’s what it is.
by bfos7215 on
May 7, 2008 1:33 PM CDT
up
reply
0 recs
Don't give up on the other guys
Manning and McGowan have more experience and both looked better at the end of the year. Payne played well until he got hurt. These guys aren’t rookies. If Steltz starts sometime this year, that is a very good thing because it means he has gotten even better than the guys in front of him that are starting to become decent.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on
May 7, 2008 2:14 PM CDT
up
reply
0 recs
how do you know
that he’d have the same year he did in Carolina here? its a stupid assumption.
I am like your Dan Aykroyd and biglow would be Jane, the ignorant slut. -Chad
by thecoolest on
May 7, 2008 5:08 PM CDT
up
reply
0 recs
Because 2nd-year, 6th-round draft picks are perfect.
He was better than Archuletta, and that’s the point. He could have been used last year.
by tyger1147 on
May 7, 2008 12:40 PM CDT
up
reply
0 recs
That was Lovie's mistake
I’m sure he was clamouring for him because he felt he could make him good again. When Lloyd gets cut it will be Turners fault we wasted any money on him, too.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on
May 7, 2008 9:20 AM CDT
reply
0 recs
yeah, but
Lloyd cost us almost nothing and only for one year.
Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!
by WCG on
May 7, 2008 9:29 AM CDT
up
reply
0 recs
GM still bears responsibility.
Just like Paxson and all his blue-collar guys. Obviously, the GM needs to trust his coaches, but he still has the call.
(I’m not completely disagreeing with you.)
by tyger1147 on
May 7, 2008 12:42 PM CDT
up
reply
0 recs
That's cool.
There does have to accountability. When a guy at that price who came from someone’s bench ends up on your team, it is usually because someone is lobbying hard core. I bet JA learned a lesson on that one though. When you you’re the boss and you work as a team, you try to trust their judgement to show you believe in them and also so they will trust you in other situations. Who knows, maybe JA wanted the guy. I think everyone on the Bears decided that if they had Brown or a quality safety in 2006 we would have been much better in the Superbowl. I agree it would have made a big difference. It is hard to execute the cover 2 if you are weak at safety.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on
May 7, 2008 1:04 PM CDT
up
reply
0 recs
Safety situation isn't nearly as dire this year
Last year after the annual Mike Brown injury, we basically only had Manning, Brandon McGowan, and Archuleta, and then when Archuleta became too much of a liability to have on the field we just had Manning and McGowan and nothing else, which killed us. This year (other than Brown) there’s Manning, McGowan, Payne, Steltz, and possibly Zack Bowman to rotate at safety, which will help out a ton. I know Payne is unproven and Steltz and Bowman are rookies, but at least they’re available players with talent, and we won’t have to sign some guy off the street.
Official Windy City Gridiron Contributor
by Doctor Chicago on
May 7, 2008 9:56 AM CDT
reply
0 recs
New FanPost
