Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

redman

"Taken out of context", the most misused cliche by athletes

Recommended Posts

Art had some very good points in yesterday's thread about all of the resources that the team has to provide media sessions for the players, etc. etc.

The fact that LA invited this guy over to his house during the work week and went behind the team's back before the biggest game of the year is simply inexcusable, DESPITE what lavar did or did not say.

That is something not even the most staunch LA supporter can justify. And I hope for their sake and their credibility, they won't even try. :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It makes perfect sense. Let me ask you something:

If you were a reporter and you had just finished covering the season, wouldn't you ask about the future? That's what would make it a complete story right? And if you wrote for the times, you might try to get some speculative answers right? And knowing that Lavar can never shut up, you'd go for the jugular right? So here's what's certainly possible, Elkin gets home, looks at the quotes, decides he doesn't want to write the season in review artcle, he has enough info to write a "LAVAR MIGHT RETIRE" controversial article! Why go with what's safe? He's trying to sell papers. Lavar is screwed because he talked too much, and Elkin has his story. Who knows, maybe that was his intent all along? Say one thing, while hoping to get enough information for the next.

Anyone who is that stupid.... and that is basically what you are saying, that Lavar has the naivety (sp?) of a 5 year old.... I wouldn't want on this team even to cover punts, much less disect complicated offensive schemes and prepare himself mentally to stop them on Sunday.

Couple that with Lavar's timing... now you have STUPID + SELFISH.

Double threat guy.... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your desperation to defend Lavar is amazing. All I can do is repeat what I said. Lavar always had it in his power to shut his mouth rather than use any of the "certain tidbits" as you called them that the writer opted to use. He refused to do that.

So, you see, Lavar's even undisciplined and selfish in the way he runs his mouth!

I don't know what's more ironic, the fact that you deem me desperate to defend Lavar when I've already conceded the interview was poor in timing and judgement, just that I didn't think it was of the intent or reasons you vehemently wish to believe, or the fact that it's you who started this thread. If I were looking at this logically, I'd say you are desperate to find the fellowship of others who share your point of view. I've seen nothing but emotional posts on your behalf critisizing Lavar and attempting to belittle people who don't wish to partake in it.

All I'm doing is looking at this situation in an emotionless fashion. I'm detached. However, I have to question whether you are or not. My opinion really has no bearing on whether or not Lavar stays or goes so I can look at this in an unbiased manner. I have no personal vendetta.

For the record, I agree with you! Lavar should have never done the interview! But I don't think he conducted it for malicious purposes with the intent to manipulate certain people in management to get his way. I think Lavar's fault as a person(one of them) is he loves to talk, and he loves an audience. Just look at his weekly appearences on the JT show, the guy likes to hear himself talk. In that way, yes you can say it was selfish, but what I think happened is he thought it was going to be a positive piece that focused on the negatives he has went through this season and how he feels now and what he thinks about his future with the team.

Now with such a broad subject, it would be easy to gain quotes to twist the story into one such as this. It would be easy for someone like Lavar to run his mouth too much and give the reporter reason to change the direction of the article. Unfortunantly, Lavar had to do the interview and he's living with the consequences of being too open with the press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I don't think he conducted it for malicious purposes with the intent to manipulate certain people in management to get his way. I think Lavar's fault as a person(one of them) is he loves to talk, and he loves an audience. Just look at his weekly appearences on the JT show, the guy likes to hear himself talk. In that way, yes you can say it was selfish, but what I think happened is he thought it was going to be a positive piece that focused on the negatives he has went through this season and how he feels now and what he thinks about his future with the team.

How is this any kind of a defense for Lavar? How is his selfish interest in getting attention (all the while detracting from the team's efforts to focus upon the most important game of the season) possibly an excuse for him, especially when during that interview he's criticizing others and never himself? Isn't this what we were bashing TO for earlier in the year?

As for this being a "positive piece", go read the quotes and tell me what positive effect could come out of them. That's laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is this any kind of a defense for Lavar? How is his selfish interest in getting attention (all the while detracting from the team's efforts to focus upon the most important game of the season) possibly an excuse for him, especially when during that interview he's criticizing others and never himself? Isn't this what we were bashing TO for earlier in the year?

As for this being a "positive piece", go read the quotes and tell me what positive effect could come out of them. That's laughable.

Do you think those quotes are the entire interview? Ofcourse not. it's more than likely they are spliced segments of it meant to compliment the slant of the article? Because reading those quotes, they don't seem like they necessarily fit together. To me, it reads like the most negative portions of each of the subjects they covered. And ofcourse there are going to be negatives from the past season. And if that's what you're after as a journalist, you're not going to use the positive quotes.

And even with those "negative" quotes there are only a few that are really inflammatory(like the one about restructuring, come on save that for later). The rest if you were reading them without the article influencing you how to think about them, you probably wouldn't be having as severe a reaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think those quotes are the entire interview? Ofcourse not. it's more than likely they are spliced segments of it meant to compliment the slant of the article? Because reading those quotes, they don't seem like they necessarily fit together. To me, it reads like the most negative portions of each of the subjects they covered. And ofcourse there are going to be negatives from the past season. And if that's what you're after as a journalist, you're not going to use the positive quotes.

And even with those "negative" quotes there are only a few that are really inflammatory(like the one about restructuring, come on save that for later). The rest if you were reading them without the article influencing you how to think about them, you probably wouldn't be having as severe a reaction.

And you base the fact that there are significant omissions upon what? Speculation?

What do the supposedly omitted portions say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And you base the fact that there are significant omissions upon what? Speculation?

What do the supposedly omitted portions say?

Please, do you really think that this article used the entire body of the interview?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TheSteve... outside of content and context and what Lavar might have said -vs- what was published...

there is a mountain of evidence outside of the content of the article to paint a very unacceptable picture of events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please, do you really think that this article used the entire body of the interview?

You're the one making the claim. What was omitted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2nd most misused cliche, especially this year is " throwing someone under the bus"' which is exactly what the Redskins organization is going to do to Lavar ater this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheSteve... outside of content and context and what Lavar might have said -vs- what was published...

there is a mountain of evidence outside of the content of the article to paint a very unacceptable picture of events.

Is it unacceptable that he conducted the interview at his house during his off days? They did get two days off. If you're on leave do you really feel like going back to Redskins park to conduct an interview within the "safety" and confines of the Redskins PR? Really, if you're honest with yourself it's the content of the article that makes you upset. If this were a feel good piece about the Redskins finally being in the playoffs for the first time in Arrington's career conducted in his mansions dining room, would you be mad? Ofcourse not.

We're sitting here debating this because Arrington said:

1. He won't restructure.

2. That he's presumeably seeing the writing on the wall about how management feels about him considering they aren't marketing him anymore like they used to, just like with Davis and Bailey.

3. He thinks how his benching was handled sent a message to him.

4. He's not sure he wants to play for anyone but the Redskins. And he might retire if he's cut. There's more to life than football!

Really, the problem with the article is timing. I have no problem with anything in the above if this is conducted in the offseason. Just because he won't restructure doesn't mean he's not loyal to the franchise. It simply means he doesn't quite trust management. He wouldn't be the first player.

But what we have here is an article written for the express purpose of inflamation. Arrington says the interview wasn't supposed to be about what the article made it out about. I can believe that, because after all journalistic freedom allows one to make any story they want out of the entire portion of an interview if they have the quotes to do it. It's been going on for ages, in sports and out of it.

But even if its true, I think we can both agree that we both wish Arrington had done something else on his offdays and waited until this run, or atleast the Eagles game was finished to do this interview. And why do we wish this, because of the content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're the one making the claim. What was omitted?

The quotes in the article are barely enough for a ten minute interview, if even that much. Does a reporter drive all the way to Annapolis to get ten minuets of interview questions? No, you get as much information as possible and then decide what to put into the article. Even interviews on television aren't the entire interview. They cut out the parts that aren't relevant to the position they are trying to present and get you to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever he says is irrelevant because the only thing he should be talking about on the Monday before our biggest game of the season is our biggest game of the season. All this me me me **** is a distraction. Good player but he's not worth the headache anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well of course it is the content. :doh:

And thesteve I seriously mean no offense, but you are defending Lavar (although you claim detachment) as if this is his first offense.

Let me ask you... what, pray tell, would Lavar have to do to get on your badside? It obviously isn't anything on the field, because he has done Jack #### for 2 years now, and it obviously isn't anything off the field, because he has said just about every inflammatory and selfish thing that an athlete could possibly say.

Seriously thesteve... what would LA have to do to get you out of his corner?

And perhaps more importantly, what has LA ever done to warrant support? Lose? He is being paid franchise money i.e. Manning, Brady, Ray Lewis, etc.... but he has done nothing but lose since his time in the NFL. Ironic that his role on the team and our winning percentage are inversely related, wouldn't you say?

....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know what's more ironic, the fact that you deem me desperate to defend Lavar when I've already conceded the interview was poor in timing and judgement, just that I didn't think it was of the intent or reasons you vehemently wish to believe, or the fact that it's you who started this thread. If I were looking at this logically, I'd say you are desperate to find the fellowship of others who share your point of view. I've seen nothing but emotional posts on your behalf critisizing Lavar and attempting to belittle people who don't wish to partake in it.

All I'm doing is looking at this situation in an emotionless fashion. I'm detached. However, I have to question whether you are or not. My opinion really has no bearing on whether or not Lavar stays or goes so I can look at this in an unbiased manner. I have no personal vendetta.

For the record, I agree with you! Lavar should have never done the interview! But I don't think he conducted it for malicious purposes with the intent to manipulate certain people in management to get his way. I think Lavar's fault as a person(one of them) is he loves to talk, and he loves an audience. Just look at his weekly appearences on the JT show, the guy likes to hear himself talk. In that way, yes you can say it was selfish, but what I think happened is he thought it was going to be a positive piece that focused on the negatives he has went through this season and how he feels now and what he thinks about his future with the team.

Now with such a broad subject, it would be easy to gain quotes to twist the story into one such as this. It would be easy for someone like Lavar to run his mouth too much and give the reporter reason to change the direction of the article. Unfortunantly, Lavar had to do the interview and he's living with the consequences of being too open with the press.

I realize this is a religious issue for most involved, and I already have posted more about lavar, yet again, then I intended to, other than cheers if he does great stuff on the field as we get on with the business of playing the game.

But Steve, it's disingenuous for you to position yourself as unemotional and objective on this topic. Your first post read pro-lavar bias, which is fine, like yours usually do, including your immediately and pre-emptively branding those who'd debate you with the most insipidly stupid term used on this site: "lavar haters".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well of course it is the content. :doh:

And thesteve I seriously mean no offense, but you are defending Lavar (although you claim detachment) as if this is his first offense.

Let me ask you... what, pray tell, would Lavar have to do to get on your badside? It obviously isn't anything on the field, because he has done Jack #### for 2 years now, and it obviously isn't anything off the field, because he has said just about every inflammatory and selfish thing that an athlete could possibly say.

Seriously thesteve... what would LA have to do to get you out of his corner?

And perhaps more importantly, what has LA ever done to warrant support? Lose? He is being paid franchise money i.e. Manning, Brady, Ray Lewis, etc.... but he has done nothing but lose since his time in the NFL. Ironic that his role on the team and our winning percentage are inversely related, wouldn't you say?

....

Well, usually an injured player would do jack ####. I wouldn't expect someone who had a serious knee injury to be back to his old form until, oh say, 2006? That's usually about how long it takes.

And for the record, I don't think this is his first offense. In fact, I think the whole situation about him not going to the coaches while he was benched and didn't know why is worse than this article. Because ultimately to succeed in life you have to know how to communicate, and he wasn't communicating with the coaches during his benching, and so I was pissed at him for that. Also, the whole situation about him being rushed back onto the field was a bit much. I don't really blame him for the bonus dispute, because even though you and I say we wouldn't care if we were making millions like him and got shafted out of half a mil(This is what he thinks mind you, and obviously there was some truth to it considering it didnt go to arbitration). I think if we were really in that situation it would cause us to distrust management a little bit.

But as for what would it take for me to turn on him like you guys, that's a good question. I guess I'm just a more patient person than most people. I'm willing to give people chances based on the possiblity of future retribution. And given that I don't think Lavar is being malicious like Owens was in Philly, I'm not ready to throw him in the preverbial Lions Den yet.

Mainly, I just want to see Arrington have a full season where he is healthy with an opportunity to produce for the Redskins. he wasn't healthy last year, and he wasn't healthy this year, so I think it's a bit dishonest to hold his lack of production against him, wouldn't you agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I realize this is a religious issue for most involved, and I already have posted more about lavar, yet again, then I intended to, other than cheers if he does great stuff on the field as we get on with the business of playing the game.

But Steve, it's disingenuous for you to position yourself as unemotional and objective on this topic. Your first post read pro-lavar bias, which is fine, like yours usually do, including your immediately and pre-emptively branding those who'd debate you with the most insipidly stupid term used on this site: "lavar haters".

If the term 'lavar hater' gets under your skin then I apologize. But the fact is some people on this site have been on Lavar for every little thing ever since I joined, so it seems only logical to brand them as anti Lavar. This doesn't mean they are any less of a fan of the Redskins than I am, it is simply an accurate catagorization of them in relation to their opinion in regards to this debate. Not everyone posting on the subject fits into that catagory.

And I am unemotional. I bear no ill will towards anyone who disagrees with me, and while I might be dissapointed if Arrington leaves(depending on the circumstances) I'm not going to be heartbroken or devestated, or carry on some sort of vendetta like some people have carried on. I'm simply enjoying a good debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thesteve that is fine if you claim patience. I will say you are a much more patient man than I... and it is something I take pride in as well. This is it, though, I can't take LA anymore. I want him off the team.

As for his production, thesteve, I admit it is a separate discussion, but lets not kid ourselves. Lavar never was an impact player. He was always the guy with the tremendous upside... the tremendous potential... the guy who made the hi-light reel once over 4 games or so.

Never thesteve, NEVER confuse LA's past production with franchise player abilities. Watch Ray Lewis on the field. He dominates. He wills the entire defense to victory. He singlehandedly won games for the Ravens during their playoff run... back when their offense couldn't even scord. Same with Lawrence Taylor... he could singlehandedly take over and win a game. The Pats will ALWAYS be a great team no matter what, as long as Tom Brady is their QB. Same goes for Peyton Manning and the Colts.

These guys are franchise players. These guys are Impact Players. These guys justify their franchise salaries.

Lavar is a player who had a handful of good games, but duped our idiot owner into paying him Franchise dollars.

Gibbs is in town, and it's time to pay up. So far, Lavar is having none of it.

Call me Pilate, 'cause I'm washing my hands. Good riddance, Lavar. Maybe you can finish your career somewhere like New Orleans or Minnesota where potential and ability can keep you around and traits such as discipline, hard work, dedication, and accountability are not valued. Although those franchises are harder and harder to come by, so I don't blame you for wanting to retire. Whatever, just as long as you're not here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoony, you're correct. Lavar's production has nto been consistent with that of a franchise linebacker. But let me ask you a question, well, two questions. If he's not a franchise player, does that automatically mean we have to get rid of him, just because he's not a Ray Lewis? Does it have to be hall of fame or bust? And secondly, do you think its possible that the revolving door of defensive schemes, all of which asked him to do something different, played a role in his underachievement as a player?

I also have to disagree with your assessment that Lavar was never an impact player. While certainly he has never really CARRIED a squad like a Ray Lewis, to try to claim he has not had an impact is not exactly an accurate statement. Arrington has been an impact player, and coaches and players in the league regard him as such. Now, does the fact that he is an impact player mean he's lived up to all of his potential, or has not let people down with his slow development or reliance upon athleticism? Certainly not, but I think we'd be likely to rely on our athletic gifts and ablities rather than scheme if it seemed that the likelyhood of scheme sticking around was naught.

So here we are in 2005, where it seems that continuity may be here for another year or two, or three. Who knows how long Gregg Williams will stick around before we get yet another defensive co-ordinator. But there's a problem, Arrington has been hurt for virtually the entire time Williams has been around. Not just a minor injury either. Why can't we wait until he has a full season, where he's healthy under Williams before we deem him unfit and cast him out the door?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zoony, you're correct. Lavar's production has nto been consistent with that of a franchise linebacker. But let me ask you a question, well, two questions. If he's not a franchise player, does that automatically mean we have to get rid of him, just because he's not a Ray Lewis?

Does it have to be hall of fame or bust?

I brought it up in the discussion yesterday... asking about the cap repurcussions of keeping LA -vs- cutting him. As best I can tell, the CAP (cap, mind you) ramifications are about the same whether we do either.

To answer your question though, based on LA's performance alone, absolutely not. And make no mistake, if it was ONLY LA's performance we were talking about I would defend him to the last.

However, this about A LOT more than his performance. Big difference.

And secondly, do you think its possible that the revolving door of defensive schemes, all of which asked him to do something different, played a role in his underachievement as a player?

Biggest myth in the Lavar saga. Ray Lewis had numerous schemes as well. He didn't have a problem.

Marcus Washington came here and picked things up rather quickly. Antonio Pierce doesn't seem to be struggling up in NY... the list is endless.

Now it's my turn to ask you a question. You are Lemar Marshall. You are making $600,000 / year playing middle LB for the Redskins. You have fought tooth and nail your entire career to get where you are. You have 1/10 the athletic ability of a LA. But you're there, working hard every day, doing your best to please the coaching staff and perform well. You read the article in the Times, and put it in your stack of LA soap opera articles in your bookcase at home, which by now is a 5 foot tall stack. Then you go to practice the next day and LA isn't even man enough to own up to it.

Your reaction sir? (as Lemar Marshall, that is.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the term 'lavar hater' gets under your skin then I apologize. But the fact is some people on this site have been on Lavar for every little thing ever since I joined, so it seems only logical to brand them as anti Lavar. This doesn't mean they are any less of a fan of the Redskins than I am, it is simply an accurate catagorization of them in relation to their opinion in regards to this debate. Not everyone posting on the subject fits into that catagory.

And I am unemotional. I bear no ill will towards anyone who disagrees with me, and while I might be dissapointed if Arrington leaves(depending on the circumstances) I'm not going to be heartbroken or devestated, or carry on some sort of vendetta like some people have carried on. I'm simply enjoying a good debate.

Well that was well said. And your comment about it (the term) "getting under my skin" is one I have to accept totally. It really does, and I equate the serious (as in not joking) use of it as really reflective of mindlessness. Which is certianly not accurate as some people using it (just some :D ) obviously aren't stupid.

I often feel in these Lavar discussions like I'm getting the red-faced fundamentalist christian message delivered to me as though I were a radical muslim, when what I really am is the agnostic who likes the minister being discussed but doesn't care for his sermons :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? Brett Favre has one of the worst records in the league and Ray Lewis isn't going to the playoffs either. And Arrington has helped the weakside run support this year, which since Holdman has been taken out and Arrington has been in has improved whether or not you wish to acknowledge that fact or not.

Brett Favre was the league MVP year after year around the time of his 6th season which Lavar is in right now. I didn't know that people like you would think that I was comparing his 14th season palying with little talent around him to Lavar's 6th with a bunch of free agents and players that nobody wanted being more highly regarded by the team.

It isn't hard to see that Lavar has underachieved. And he even said in his quotes that he doesn't really give 2 ****s anyway because it's just a game that he is overpaid to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.