Tulane Skins Fan Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 One more thing to add: There seems to be a lot of posts from people about LA's attitude on the JT show the other day. Every one keeps saying that this was a positive step and that it probably means Lavar is getting it and will be back on the field sooner rather than later. My question is, haven't we been saying the whole time that this is not a question of anything off-field, but that Lavar just wasn't a disciplined enough player to get on the field? How do we go from that logic to LA's interview getting him on the field faster. I for one, do not want to think that GW makes any decisions based on off-field antics. If he was, then that makes these guys who called GW an "ego-maniac" seem right. I don't believe that. But why is everyone insinuating that Lavar's attitude is going to get him back in good graces and on the field. It doesnt have to do with that. If it did, ST wouldnt be playing for GW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 One more thing to add: There seems to be a lot of posts from people about LA's attitude on the JT show the other day. Every one keeps saying that this was a positive step and that it probably means Lavar is getting it and will be back on the field sooner rather than later. My question is, haven't we been saying the whole time that this is not a question of anything off-field, but that Lavar just wasn't a disciplined enough player to get on the field? How do we go from that logic to LA's interview getting him on the field faster. I for one, do not want to think that GW makes any decisions based on off-field antics. If he was, then that makes these guys who called GW an "ego-maniac" seem right. I don't believe that. But why is everyone insinuating that Lavar's attitude is going to get him back in good graces and on the field. It doesnt have to do with that. If it did, ST wouldnt be playing for GW It's not that what he says off field has a bearing on his playting time. It's that a positive, team first attitude is a lot more conducive to success than a whiny, woe is me, I'm Lavar so I should play attitude. I just think that his attitude change is indicitive of the fact that he's finally said to himself, ok, screw it all, I'm just going to show these guys that I'm the best man for the job. That's all it is. If he has decided that instead of crying he's gonna go earn himself a place on this team then it's all the better for everybody. Like I said before, I think he will make an impact and when he does, he'll be a much better player for having earned his spot rather than doing what he wanted and getting because of his rep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDSKNfaithfull Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 We even have you guys claiming there is no such thing as packages We even have you guys claiming there is no such thing as packages that include Lavar on the defensive side of the ball. Notice the difference in the two sentances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 He's finally decided to be responsible for his actions, words, what happens to him and the level of success he achieves....Hopefully. I want nothing more than to see him messin up QBs on the field, but if GW says he's not ready than you'd better belive, he ain't ready. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 It's not that what he says off field has a bearing on his playting time. It's that a positive, team first attitude is a lot more conducive to success than a whiny, woe is me, I'm Lavar so I should play attitude. I just think that his attitude change is indicitive of the fact that he's finally said to himself, ok, screw it all, I'm just going to show these guys that I'm the best man for the job. That's all it is. If he has decided that instead of crying he's gonna go earn himself a place on this team then it's all the better for everybody. Like I said before, I think he will make an impact and when he does, he'll be a much better player for having earned his spot rather than doing what he wanted and getting because of his rep. I think you have to back it up. Because he was never benched for an attitude problem. The attitude "problem" came from him being benched. So, you can't say that this new attitude is going to "right" anything. He still has to find a way to get on the field, by performing on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuels Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 Sorry if I offended anyone with the B-washers comment it was'nt meant that way and I was'nt trying to offend anyone. Its a word I've grewup around for years and does'nt mean exactly what some my think it does literally. And thank u Art for reinstating me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 Sorry if I offended anyone with the B-washers comment it was'nt meant that way and I was'nt trying to offend anyone. Its a word I've grewup around for years and does'nt mean exactly what some my think it does literally.And thank u Art for reinstating me. Sure thing. You're a long-time, respected member of this site. We don't get rid of the likes of you that easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goaldeje Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 This is a fascinating conversation. Truly fascinating. I am really divided on this, and unsure (as we all are, really) what is going on. I will try to encapsulate my feeling thusly: If this was happening to Lavar under the Spurrier regime, or Norv, I would be furious right now. To have a talent waste away on the bench would have infuriated me. It's interesting, in that I am not so concerned about it with Gibbs. I don't trust Williams as much as I trust Gibbs. But, to my knowledge, Gibbs has not stepped in and laid the law down to GW; this means, to me at least, that Gibbs supports GW's actions. Again, were this happening under Norv, I would be quite upset. But I (like many of you here) have seen some incredible changes in the organization the last two years, that are finally translating to on the field success this year. Gibbs has brought back the fire and the will to win. Something pretty cool is going on up there. So I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I understand, truly, that others may be reticent to do so. It does seem completely contrary to what we have seen in the past, to have Lavar sitting on the bench. Really strange. But, look at the moves Gibbs has made, look at the fight in the team, the motivation, the hunger that have all been lacking for 15 years. Is Gibbs finding a way to push Lavar's buttons as others have suggested? I don't know. No idea. But he is bringing back respectability and success to this franchise, long bereft of both. If this is what he thinks is best, I'm willing to go along with it. Having said all that, I understand the frustration expressed by others. You look at this situation and say, "Man, how much better would our defense be if we infused with more talent?" I can't blame them for thinking that way at all, as I have. Discussions are good, even heated ones; but I hate to see the mods motives questioned b/c of the merger. Additionally, mods, I love you, but you can be condescending at times, which serves only to infuriate those who you have condescended. Whether you meant to or not is practically irrelevant. What I have seen from this board is an unwillingness to look at both sides. I am on the coach's side, not b/c I am a "company man", but because I like what I have seen from Gibbs, and believe in what he is trying to do. But I CAN understand the other side. Both are rational, explainable viewpoints that have legitimacy. PS. I think we can all agree that :dallasuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disneyskin Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 G that is a great post, I couldn't agree more. As Om has said so eloquently, this team is finally a team and the question is will LA do what it takes to fit in or as Coach Gibbs puts it to be a "true Redskin. I sure hope so, sooner rather than later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joelvincent Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 wait, I thought wasn't getting reps? This is my thought. You mean he's getting reps with the defense now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 I think you have to back it up. Because he was never benched for an attitude problem. The attitude "problem" came from him being benched. So, you can't say that this new attitude is going to "right" anything. He still has to find a way to get on the field, by performing on the field. That's my point exactly. He wasn't benched because of his attitude. He was benched because he wasn't playing with confidence in his leg or playing within the sytem. I think the change in attitude is a sign that he's ready to do whatever the coaches say to get on the field. Instead of talking about how the coaches have hidden motives for holding him down and how he doesn't think he'll be here much longer he's talking about how the team has a chance to be special. He's talking about how the coaches gameplans give them a chance to succeed. He's talking about team performance as though he were a contributing member of the team not as an individual and I think that will enable him to accept the GW system and play within it. I feel like he's finally realizing that the Redskins and winning are what's important and not him or his playing time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor ToughLove Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Geez, if I read "LaVar is finally getting it" one more time in a post...lol...What an empty, generic phrase.When some said it after his interview this week, it fit more appropriately, for LaVar "getting it" seemed to refer to his keeping his thoughts about his playing time to himself. But now it's getting attached to anything even remotely positive concerning LaVar...if someone says LaVar's socks looked cleaner yesterday than normal, there will be about 45 posters who will automatically respond with "looks like LaVar is finally getting it, then"... I also think it's....coincidental, to say the least, that LaVar is "finally getting it" right after the Skins allowed 49 points in back-to-back losses. The chants of "The Skins are 3-0! Trust the coaches!" lost a little luster now that the Skins are 3-2...and the "Williams' scheme requires rock-solid discipline to work and LaVar would be a hindrance" line doesn't seem quite as undeniable a retort with the defense allowing several long scoring plays the past two weeks in defeats...and happening at times when the defense and its rock-solid-disciplined players should have been shutting down the opposition. Instead, two 50+ yard TD scores were allowed late in the last two games when the score was either tied or within 4 points. But I'm sure all of this is simply LaVar finally "getting it"... :applause: Glad to see someone "gets it". After starting a losing streak, could have been 5-0, and giving up the division to the Cowboys I think it is clear that GREGG WILLIAMS is the one who is finally "getting it". How magically convenient that Lavar is now supposedly ready. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Om,My use of that name had a very specific purpose. He is probably the most notorious propagandist in history. Since most of you are too intelligent and not absurd, I wouldn't call you the Iraqi Information Minister--(though how that would be less 'horrible' a thing, I don't really know, other than perceptions.) Therefore, I use a name to display my belief that a good many of the people on this board prefer to engage in retroactive, proactive and redactive boosterism of whatever they perceive the coaching staff's position to be. That doesn't mean ALL, for I've encountered people who have varying opinions on different subjects(for instance pro-Brunell decision, but anti-Lavar decisions a la fansince.) If I had said Eisenstein, would that have made anyone feel better? Would most of the people addressed know who I was talking about? In any event, sorry, I see a lot of 'discussion' on ANY given issue that demonstrated some are incapable of not being apologists for the staff, even in situations where it may be something the staff IS looking at and just hasn't implemented or felt was too risky (changing snap counts up a bit.) People want to say that it's the noobs who've brought down the discussion, but I can ignore those posts. Ironically, it's Gibbs and the staff who've brought it down. Before ASF could go on about McCants, Kim Helton or someone else would go off on Marty trying to teach Darrell Green "technique." But now, some argue from the vantage point of 'coach infallibility' and refuse to even argue from an 'even' footing. It degenerates into an argument over the credibility of the coaching staff, when in reality it should just be a damn argument about what we know and can see(but the problem is, some people never take sides that don't somehow act as apologia for the perceived staff opinion.) Some of us are positive about the team overall, and have faith in the staff AND organization AND players but quibble on a few, though a significant few, issues. Some of us do not appreciate being told one thing one week, then it evolves as more TRUTH comes out and then the same people who told us the truth was X, now say it still is X despite the new evidence telling us that it actually is more XY or maybe even just Y. It seems there are more than a few posters who will ignore previous statements or actions so that they can focus ONLY on the ones that form the most airtight case for "the staff." It's true, some will do this for other issues, but the 'divide' on this board is not from individual posters being selective on unique topics. And Om, trust me, before anyone started questioning the resident Ministry of Truth, honest and sincere critics were already being called out for 'questioning Gibbs.' Hate to get into a 'who started it' thing here, but it was the reaction against those who dared utter a word of criticism or merely observation that has struck blows against the site's quality. You couldn't even let an observation about snap counts pass without telling us it wasn't really a big deal, even though coaching staff from the Chiefs told them to 1) look out for how Brunell holds the ball and swipe it out and 2) listen to the count and burst off the line because it's the same How are we to categorize such a response? A veteran poster skeptical of something an opponent says because it MIGHT (and only might, we have no idea what they're talking about in Redskins Park) be a reflection on a mistake or obstinance of the coaching staff? When Darren Sharper talked about the offense last year, is a HoF-type defensive signal caller somehow not credible? This thing has been going on since "the Return." Same things last year, except LAST YEAR, maybe due to results, some of the people from 2005 who have become the apologists were actually critical last year (including Art.) Ghost, I'm not quite sure what to do with this meandering (albeit entertaining) ramble. I wasn't really seeking a position paper before; mostly I was busting on you for taking an imflammatory cheap shot. But, since you put in the time: I do know who Goebbels was. No, I don't think using Eisenstein instead would have particularly helped. Yes, there are people whose only responses to team issues seems to be "in Gibbs I trust." Yes, there are also at least as many people whose only responses to those same team issues seems to be "screw 'em, they all suck." I'd like to think the brighter and more established members here would opt to refrain from posting unsolicited, inflammatory shots at those on the outside fringe of the other side of any given topic. That's really all it was about. Seriously. It is my hope that's what you and others will take from it. Now, back to Parsing LaVar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor ToughLove Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Good post. Of course, it gets lost in the sea of little Goebbels out there, parroting not even what coaches have said in some cases, but just putting the stamp of the 'coaches' approval' on their own PERCEPTION of what occurred.To me, that's what has made the site less enjoyable, not the few morons whose posts I can easily ignore. Love the "Goebbel" reference. It is absolutely true and accurate. The whole Lavar incident has been war waged by propaganda and no facts to back it up. Lavar does not give up 5 plays for every 1 he makes (Bugel). Lavar is not a "media darling" who expects special treatment (Blanche). Lavar is not being held out because of concern for his recovery (Gibbs). Lavar is not being held out because of lack of available packages (Williams). Lavar did not play more 3 weeks in a row (coaching staff). Lavar didn't refused to play special teams (media leak??). Lavar is not demanding the coaches start him. Lavar is not being held out because Holdman doesn't give up big plays. Lavar has not gone public for more playing time. What did Lavar ever say? I am not injured? I am not the starter? I support my team mates? I can't tell you why I am not playing? Crucify him, what the heck? The guy has been golden through a stink storm. Doc Walker called it "slander". Kornheiser called it a "smear campaign". "Sea of Goebbels" seems right in line with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuels Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Love the "Goebbel" reference. It is absolutely true and accurate. The whole Lavar incident has been war waged by propaganda and no facts to back it up. Lavar does not give up 5 plays for every 1 he makes (Bugel). Lavar is not a "media darling" who expects special treatment (Blanche). Lavar is not being held out because of concern for his recovery (Gibbs). Lavar is not being held out because of lack of available packages (Williams). Lavar did not play more 3 weeks in a row (coaching staff). Lavar didn't refused to play special teams (media leak??). Lavar is not demanding the coaches start him. Lavar is not being held out because Holdman doesn't give up big plays. Lavar has not gone public for more playing time. What did Lavar ever say? I am not injured? I am not the starter? I support my team mates? I can't tell you why I am not playing? Crucify him, what the heck? The guy has been golden through a stink storm. Doc Walker called it "slander". Kornheiser called it a "smear campaign". "Sea of Goebbels" seems right in line with that. Good post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Love the "Goebbel" reference. It is absolutely true and accurate. The whole Lavar incident has been war waged by propaganda and no facts to back it up. Lavar does not give up 5 plays for every 1 he makes (Bugel). Lavar is not a "media darling" who expects special treatment (Blanche). Lavar is not being held out because of concern for his recovery (Gibbs). Lavar is not being held out because of lack of available packages (Williams). Lavar did not play more 3 weeks in a row (coaching staff). Lavar didn't refused to play special teams (media leak??). Lavar is not demanding the coaches start him. Lavar is not being held out because Holdman doesn't give up big plays. Lavar has not gone public for more playing time. What did Lavar ever say? I am not injured? I am not the starter? I support my team mates? I can't tell you why I am not playing? Crucify him, what the heck? The guy has been golden through a stink storm. Doc Walker called it "slander". Kornheiser called it a "smear campaign". "Sea of Goebbels" seems right in line with that. Among a list of other factual pronouncements about what has/has not happened at Redskins Park, you also accuse Bugel, Blanche, Gibbs and Williams of telling outright falsehoods. And apparently believe that LaVar is a victim, pure and simple. Care to share what you base that all upon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor ToughLove Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Among a list of other factual pronouncements about what has/has not happened at Redskins Park, you also accuse Bugel, Blanche, Gibbs and Williams of telling outright falsehoods. And apparently believe that LaVar is a victim, pure and simple.Care to share what you base that all upon? Care to provide any evidence to the contrary? Note: I never said "falsehoods", "outright falsehoods", or "vicim". But I thank you for refering to... a list of factual pronouncements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Care to provide any evidence to the contrary?Note: I never said "falsehoods", "outright falsehoods", or "vicim". But I thank you for refering to... a list of factual pronouncements. You didn't use those exact words but how do you explain this?: Love the "Goebbel" reference. It is absolutely true and accurate. The whole Lavar incident has been war waged by propaganda and no facts to back it up. Lavar does not give up 5 plays for every 1 he makes (Bugel). Lavar is not a "media darling" who expects special treatment (Blanche). Lavar is not being held out because of concern for his recovery (Gibbs). Lavar is not being held out because of lack of available packages (Williams). Lavar did not play more 3 weeks in a row (coaching staff). Lavar didn't refused to play special teams (media leak??). Lavar is not demanding the coaches start him. Lavar is not being held out because Holdman doesn't give up big plays. Lavar has not gone public for more playing time. You don't think that you are calling the coaches liars in this post? What did Lavar ever say? I am not injured? I am not the starter? I support my team mates? I can't tell you why I am not playing? Crucify him, what the heck? The guy has been golden through a stink storm.Doc Walker called it "slander". Kornheiser called it a "smear campaign". "Sea of Goebbels" seems right in line with that. That's not inferring that he is a victim? How do you know that Lavar doesn't make 5 mistakes in practice for every good one he makes? How do you know that Lavar doesn't demand special treatment behind closed doors? How do you know that Gibbs isn't concerned about his knee? How do you know that Lavar didn't refuse to play special teams? How do you know that Lavar didn't demand to start? You are using pure speculation just like everyone else on these boards, unless of course someone here has the opportunity to attend practice that everyone else is denied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Care to provide any evidence to the contrary?Note: I never said "falsehoods", "outright falsehoods", or "vicim". But I thank you for refering to... a list of factual pronouncements. Nope. You made the statements at issue (apparently without the courage of your convictions to back them up), not I. What I did I asked you to support them. Based on this response, it seems you cannot. Which was the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCMONEY Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 One more thing to add: There seems to be a lot of posts from people about LA's attitude on the JT show the other day. Every one keeps saying that this was a positive step and that it probably means Lavar is getting it and will be back on the field sooner rather than later. My question is, haven't we been saying the whole time that this is not a question of anything off-field, but that Lavar just wasn't a disciplined enough player to get on the field? How do we go from that logic to LA's interview getting him on the field faster. I for one, do not want to think that GW makes any decisions based on off-field antics. If he was, then that makes these guys who called GW an "ego-maniac" seem right. I don't believe that. But why is everyone insinuating that Lavar's attitude is going to get him back in good graces and on the field. It doesnt have to do with that. If it did, ST wouldnt be playing for GW You're right. This is exactly the reason why I say the coaches have some blame in this also. You brought up an excellent point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Murphaaay Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 LaVar has not been a guy with a winning attitude. Changing that is hard. Is anyone here really going to try and convince us that #56 is sitting in his basement like Ray Lewis looking at game films and studying his opponents with teammates on his own time? :laugh:LaVar as Art has stated has thought to this point that all he had to do was show up and the party would start. You don't win that way in the NFL. Does anyone think that Bill Bellichick or Jeff Fisher allow players to read and play from their own playbooks and then still get their teams to the playoffs consistently? No, what these defensive coaches have done is take LESS talented players and get MORE out of them. That is one of the secrets to their success. Bellichick has never had a linebacker with Arrington's physical talent. Yet he has won 3 Super Bowls. Marvin Lewis and Gregg Williams have coached Super Bowl defenses. But instead of learning from them Arrington fought 'em every step of the way. And THAT is how he got into his present situation. EXACTAMUNDO!!!!!! This is one of the best posts on this subject. People don't realize that it takes more than just showing up with your big muscles to be a great defensive player. I DO and HAVE felt as though LaVar doesn't study the game to the extent that other great players do, a la Ray Lewis, Ted Bruschi...etc. He'd be twice the player he is now. He'd be able to recognize where the play is going before it happens, so he wouldn't overrun as many plays or be in the wrong position. I think he's simply ignored a lot of the more discipline schemes (GW and ML) he's been in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor ToughLove Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 You didn't use those exact words but how do you explain this?: Thank you for saying I didn't use those words. I, like Lavar, am not going to make a habbit of defending myself, especially things you admitted I did not say. I'll ask a second time...Do you have evidence to the contrary? (your answer is conspicously absent) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Thank you for saying I didn't use those words. I, like Lavar, am not going to make a habbit of defending myself, especially things you admitted I did not say. I'll ask a second time...Do you have evidence to the contrary? (your answer is conspicously absent) So your defense is that you used other words that mean the exact same thing? Ahhh, the old Bill Clinton defense, "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor ToughLove Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Nope. You made the statements at issue (apparently without the courage of your convictions to back them up), not I. What I did I asked you to support them. Based on this response, it seems you cannot. Which was the point. As you have no evidence to the contrary there is no need defend statements you cannot dispute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 As you have no evidence to the contrary there is no need defend statements you cannot dispute. Does that actually mean something? Never mind. As you are clearly reduced to evasion and obfuscation at this point, I shall waste no more time on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.