Spaceman Spiff Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Yep. And I'm tired of threads asking if I'm tired about tired topics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegas-Born Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 NO DAMNIT--Im not tired of this issue because Lavar should be playing. The fact is Holdman is a decent player who makes tackles three or four yards down the field. Sure he rarely misses assignments. But he rarely makes a great plays either. He just does enough each play. Lavar is a play maker. He blows things up. He can move from sideline to sideline searching and destroying. If Holdman was able to do what Lavar can do--sure play Holdman. But he can't. Lavar is a much more talented LB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 What Arrington issue? Right now, I'd say, on a scale of "What things are Skins fans ticked off about", that "LaVarr Arrington" ranks lower then "the tuck rule". I'm a lot more ticked at Gregg Williams' defense letting Tatum freaking Bell pop two 55-yard TDs against us than I am about his selection of players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Oracle Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 The truth is, put a fork in it, this is LA's final year with this organization. Next year he'll be with some other team, doing great things, making pro bowls, whatever.... What I'm having problems stomaching is when the Skins were masterful losers, he was the one constantly being "Mr. Redskin". And now he's relegated to the bench and explained away with "personnel packages" excuses?!?!? Where's the loyalty??? The cavalier coach-speak is getting a little old and tired. Forgive me but I thought with JG coming back into the fold there would be more class exhibited by the organization on matters such as the one-time leader being benched? Oh, but I also just remembered Art Monk, Doug Williams, B-Mitch, etc. and this thing with LA is much of the same. My fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdsknbill Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 This is starting to remind of the TO situation in Philthy before the season :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmiJo Posted October 10, 2005 Author Share Posted October 10, 2005 MAN...I'M JUST TIRED OF LOSING! The experts were right. This is the week that starts the Redskins losing season for the umpteenth year in a row. Can't argue witht eh experts...they all called it...and the Skins didn't disappoint. Damn Homey, can you be just a little less optimistic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Exactly why do you call "personnel packages" excuses? You know the Redskins run 21 or so personnel groupings on defense, right? You know that every single play for our defense falls into one of those personnel packages. Lavar is clearly only on a couple of those that require the least thought and most action. He's clearly designed in on packages where he can just go do something instead of having to read his keys and make the proper selection. We only had a couple of instances like that yesterday earlier in the game. When Gibbs came back what you should have expected was a coaching staff that could tolerate physical errors but would not tolerate mental errors in the form of missing an assignment based on not doing your job on any given play. According to the best linebacker we currently have playing, Lavar was set back by not being able to get reps throughout the off season as Williams was implementing new stuff and he's not picked it up yet to be comfortable with his assignments. He's being treated about exactly as you'd hope he would be. He'll play when he's ready. He won't play much until he is -- or until there's injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 What I'm having problems stomaching is when the Skins were masterful losers, he was the one constantly being "Mr. Redskin". And now he's relegated to the bench and explained away with "personnel packages" excuses?!?!? Where's the loyalty??? The cavalier coach-speak is getting a little old and tired. Y'know, I'm starting to have a problem with the number of people claiming that Joe Gibbs lacks loyalty to his players, because he's using coach-speak when he's not playing them. Just what, exactly, do you folks who know better than Joe Gibbs expect he should do? Play a player that he thinks gives the team less chance of winning? Or perhaps you're upset because he's trying to avoid saying "I benched him because he screws up too many times. I've been trying to teach him how to play beter in practices, but the brick just won't learn, either, and I really ain't got time to do remedial teaching, right now."? When you have to bench a player, saying "I expect him to return any day now, and gee, we shure miss him." is the classy thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmiJo Posted October 10, 2005 Author Share Posted October 10, 2005 Yep. And I'm tired of threads asking if I'm tired about tired topics. And yet you contribute, that's big of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Oracle Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Exactly why do you call "personnel packages" excuses? You know the Redskins run 21 or so personnel groupings on defense, right? You know that every single play for our defense falls into one of those personnel packages. Lavar is clearly only on a couple of those that require the least thought and most action. He's clearly designed in on packages where he can just go do something instead of having to read his keys and make the proper selection. We only had a couple of instances like that yesterday earlier in the game. When Gibbs came back what you should have expected was a coaching staff that could tolerate physical errors but would not tolerate mental errors in the form of missing an assignment based on not doing your job on any given play. According to the best linebacker we currently have playing, Lavar was set back by not being able to get reps throughout the off season as Williams was implementing new stuff and he's not picked it up yet to be comfortable with his assignments. He's being treated about exactly as you'd hope he would be. He'll play when he's ready. He won't play much until he is -- or until there's injury. ------------------- You must be GW in disguise. Those "21 or so" packages you mentioned only have one, maybe two if complex, reads at most that the WLB has to make. So should I deduce LA can't make those reads? Is that what you're saying? If it is, please take a step back and re-think your position because I find that awfully difficult to swallow. Secondly, those 21 or so packages that only have 1 or 2 for LA (at WLB, no less) is enough of a reason to question the personnel decisions around who's playing in them. Finally, in your perfect world you would hope this to be the case: "He's being treated about exactly as you'd hope he would be. He'll play when he's ready. He won't play much until he is -- or until there's injury." But this isn't your perfect world... Its the NFL. You have to play your best players. One game can be explained away with all the excuses in the world. If we lose to KC (and if we don't the score will be like 41 - 38), which is very possible, the personnel question fires will begin to burn much hotter and we'll be right here again; answering the same ole' question - Why isn't LA in the game? And people of your ilk will give the same ole' answer (paraphrasing), "He's being treated about exactly as you'd hope he would be. He'll play when he's ready. He won't play much until he is -- or until there's injury." As an aside/observation: I see no one's saying Holdman or Clemons is getting the job done anymore. hmm...very interesting, indeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addme2theRoster Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 I mean it's as simply as giving the man a chance. Put the guy in for a couple of series. I'm sure he isn't going to stink up the defense. I mean come on...it's Lavar. I've seen that man hit, I know you guys didn't forget. That man can lay some serious wood! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Oracle Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Y'know, I'm starting to have a problem with the number of people claiming that Joe Gibbs lacks loyalty to his players, because he's using coach-speak when he's not playing them. Just what, exactly, do you folks who know better than Joe Gibbs expect he should do? Play a player that he thinks gives the team less chance of winning? Or perhaps you're upset because he's trying to avoid saying "I benched him because he screws up too many times. I've been trying to teach him how to play beter in practices, but the brick just won't learn, either, and I really ain't got time to do remedial teaching, right now."? When you have to bench a player, saying "I expect him to return any day now, and gee, we shure miss him." is the classy thing to do. --------------- True. However, my point has been missed. I'm not talking about JG... I'm talking about GW. JG is backing his "Ass't Head Coach" (which is probably way too much of a title for him) which is completely classy. JG is one of my heros of the game and personally. It's GW that my comments were reflecting. JG doesn't speak much on the issue, but ironically, as much as GW. This is what I'm talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a_good_brotha Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 I like LA and all, but I'm tired of the issue too. The thing that I'm sick of the most is all the speculation. First H. Long said Lavar refused to play on special teams. Then this morning on Cold Pizza, someone said maybe LA's being benched out of spite for the contract dispute in the offseason. Enough already! :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmiJo Posted October 10, 2005 Author Share Posted October 10, 2005 I mean it's as simply as giving the man a chance. Put the guy in for a couple of series. I'm sure he isn't going to stink up the defense. I mean come on...it's Lavar. I've seen that man hit, I know you guys didn't forget. That man can lay some serious wood! Yes, I believe he is about as good as anyone at closing on the ball. I have also seen him go to where he thinks it will be while the play ends up going to where he was. I remember the Carolina game specifically. I also noticed that the first Denver TD went to his side and thought that if he was in the game, he would have made the play. My point in starting this thread however is to ultimately gauge where people are at with this issue in terms of it being a distraction for the team. I beleive it has become one, and that we are fostering it here on this board. Not saying that no-one has the right to discuss anything they want. But my thing is this - we are acting as the media's unwitting ally when we allow them to whip us into a frenzy that is perpetuated here. Who here was talking about this 3 weeks ago? He wasn't playing then. It was only after the media local and national started beating the drums that this board blew up with it. This ultimately creates distraction for the team, as the media then goes back to the team and says something like "many fans out there are wondering why so-and-so got benched/is not playing." They did this with the PR-benching and I know they did because I saw and heard them do it. At the end of the day, the team will do what it's going to do. If there is an issue other than what we are being told, maybe its none of our business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Oracle Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Yes, I believe he is about as good as anyone at closing on the ball. I have also seen him go to where he thinks it will be while the play ends up going to where he was. I remember the Carolina game specifically.I also noticed that the first Denver TD went to his side and thought that if he was in the game, he would have made the play. My point in starting this thread however is to ultimately gauge where people are at with this issue in terms of it being a distraction for the team. I beleive it has become one, and that we are fostering it here on this board. Not saying that no-one has the right to discuss anything they want. But my thing is this - we are acting as the media's unwitting ally when we allow them to whip us into a frenzy that is perpetuated here. Who here was talking about this 3 weeks ago? He wasn't playing then. It was only after the media local and national started beating the drums that this board blew up with it. This ultimately creates distraction for the team, as the media then goes back to the team and says something like "many fans out there are wondering why so-and-so got benched/is not playing." They did this with the PR-benching and I know they did because I saw and heard them do it. At the end of the day, the team will do what it's going to do. If there is an issue other than what we are being told, maybe its none of our business. ------------------ In a spectator sport, its everyone's business. As long as we're buying tix, concessions and jerseys I have a "perceived" right to know what's going on. If they (organization) elect to not tell me, well, I guess I have some decisions to make then, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bnolf Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 The defense can't make the big plays, sacks, etc. We need a quality pass rusher and big play guy. Get Arrington into the game!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmiJo Posted October 10, 2005 Author Share Posted October 10, 2005 ------------------In a spectator sport, its everyone's business. As long as we're buying tix, concessions and jerseys I have a "perceived" right to know what's going on. If they (organization) elect to not tell me, well, I guess I have some decisions to make then, right? :bsflag: :bsflag: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChampSkinsFanatic Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 I voted it and made it 52-52, why is this even right down the middle. Lavar is arguably the best player on defense, but for some reason hes not out there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Oracle Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 :bsflag: :bsflag: ---------------------- Overly intelligent being you are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neophyte Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 The bottom line is that we had our chance to drop Alexander at the LOS last week on his big run, the chance to drop Bell for a loss on his first big one this week and a chance to drop him for a loss, no gain and a 3 or 4 yard gain on the second one and we missed all those chances. We did not miss those chances because Lavar was not in the game either. Guys were in position to make the play and just didn't, for whatever reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 It is completely ridiculous not to play Lavar. There's more to it than him not fitting into the scheme. Give him 5 plays! There's no way he's that much of a liability to not play him at all. I wish Greg Williams would stop BSing and just tell reporters the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 ------------------In a spectator sport, its everyone's business. As long as we're buying tix, concessions and jerseys I have a "perceived" right to know what's going on. If they (organization) elect to not tell me, well, I guess I have some decisions to make then, right? Folks, this isn't the Bush administration concealing information about Saddam's WMD program. This is a company chosing (correctly) not to discuss personnell issues in public. My salary is between me and my boss. It isn't the customer's business. And you are correct. If you thought that by buying consessions that this entitled you to be involved in personnell decisions, then you've got some decisions to make. Don't let the doorknob hit you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neophyte Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Those "21 or so" packages you mentioned only have one, maybe two if complex, reads at most that the WLB has to make. So should I deduce LA can't make those reads? Is that what you're saying? If it is, please take a step back and re-think your position because I find that awfully difficult to swallow. Secondly, those 21 or so packages that only have 1 or 2 for LA (at WLB, no less) is enough of a reason to question the personnel decisions around who's playing in them. And you know this how exactly? You are sitting in the film room with Williams and Lindsey? Maybe you in the defensive team meetings? Or in the LB meetings? Just how do you know this that you state it with so much authority? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmiJo Posted October 10, 2005 Author Share Posted October 10, 2005 ----------------------Overly intelligent being you are... How you think you have a right to know every issue regarding players on this team is beyond me. You said it right however, you have some decisions to make. Riddle me this - who drafted LA? Who was the coach when they re-did his deal? If you answered JG or GW then you answered incorrectly. Maybe he is not the type of player GW wants, and it could be a simple as that. The decision to pay LA the money he is making I am relegating to the "When Danny was the GM" pile. Based on our record this year, the marked improvement over last year, INJURIES to our secondary, and the character of this team, I am willing to give GW some credit. And remember, this is the coach you are being critical of - GW. Not Gibbs. So are you now prepared to say that GW does not know what he is doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 I think people are envisioning Arrington of 2-3 years ago and wondering why he isn't playing. I really think his reaction times are slower and his legs just don't have the spring in them. Will he get it back? Possibly. He was inactive for a long time and had a surgery in the offseason. He had to lay off for a long time and therefore went through some sort of atrophy. If he isn't playing it is probably because he isn't as good as the person in front of him right now. As he runs around in practice and gets his conditioning/quickness/speed back and continues to learn the defense and learn to read the play in this defense we maight see him back on the field and making plays for us. But, for now, the coaches see him as a liablity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.