d0ublestr0ker0ll Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Most of us are bummed out about losing Lavar, but in all reality, how much do you think our defense will suffer? Will it be tougher to stop the run? Will our pass defense suffer? Will it be harder to create as many turnovers? I'm reluctant to say it's a good thing that losing Lavar will free up more space for scrappy-type players. But I think it actually is. Your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 It depends on a lot of factors Who do we bring in to fill the void Lavar leaves? Will this player be able to play within the scheme and make tackles? Tough to say right now. My guess though, very little Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinstzar Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 I think the defense could have reached its potential this season with a healthy Lavar, we won't know how the defense will be until he is replaced and ST's trial is over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Did it suffer when he was injured and was benched? Not much if any difference. He hasnt been a difference maker for a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Sassy Molassy Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 I don't think we'll suffer much, if at all. He was there the entire '04 season, and we were, what, #3? We can survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Weirdo Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Half of the time he wasn't even in last season and your defense played at a very high level. I'll go out on a limb and say it won't effect it much at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Thats like asking how much the world would suffer losing termites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigredskin77 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 It's risky for us to cut him. He is atleast a solid player. THe coaches might replace him with a bum like Warrick holdman or something. I dont know. Know we have to look towards the draft because i dont trust free agency anymore. Maybe move lemar to outisde and draft a Middle Linebacker. Abdul Hodge or Ahmad Brooks maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamshatterer Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Hmmm, let me think, top 10 defense with him being in there for a total of 10 games over 2 years. I think we will be fine. If GW can make a star outta Pierce and outta Marshall, he can do it again. Is Clemons the answer, I don't know, but GW will give us one. He should already know that Holdman is NOT the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinstzar Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Did it suffer when he was injured and was benched?Not much if any difference. He hasnt been a difference maker for a few years. It is not about how much it suffered when he was out. That is a pretty narrowed minded way to look at it and I doubt the coaching staff would be dumb enough to look at it that way. What matters is how good they could have been with a healthy Lavar. Unfortunately we will never know. There is no doubt this defense will be stout. Will it be dominant is hard to determine until some outside factors get worked out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMADD Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 In the short term, the team is worse. Arrington is a talented player, and subtracting a talented player without an obvious replacement means you get worse. But in the long term, because they've absorbed the cap hit now, the Skins will be much better. They've now got real cap room in 2007 to make major additions to the team. Couple that with a much higher cap, and suddenly the Skins are poised to be a major player in FA again. With Joe Gibbs making the free agent picks instead of Danny and Vinny, this time it could go very, very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Won't suffer at all, look how we've played without him the last two years. I know one thing, we won't bite so freakin hard on play actions anymore. Seriously, opposing offensive coordinators gameplaned around the fact that they knew they could get Arrington out of position and biting on stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifty Gut Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 he was a step slow on pass rush, didn't have that old LaVar speed to recover and chase down RBs, and didn't create turnovers since we never knew a healthy LaVar in GW's defense, we won't miss much but a leader the players respected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimFolk Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Give Clemons/McCune full reps in OTA/Mini/Traing Camps and we'll be straight at OLB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelarkascend1ng Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 he hasn't been a game changing player for at least two years. the biggest reason that this is such a big deal is simply because it IS lavar arrington, and it's really awkward to think of #56 not playing in burgundy and gold. i trust every move, every step, every look and motion, that this team has made in the offseason - especially after last year. every time we have something that looks bad happen to us, gibbs and co. seem to make it work better than we could imagine. it's sad to see LA go, but i think we'll be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 It is not about how much it suffered when he was out. That is a pretty narrowed minded way to look at it and I doubt the coaching staff would be dumb enough to look at it that way. What matters is how good they could have been with a healthy Lavar. Unfortunately we will never know. There is no doubt this defense will be stout. Will it be dominant is hard to determine until some outside factors get worked out. Lavar hasnt been healthy physically nor has he been a factor for a few years now. Sure in a perfect world and with a perfect Lavar, loosing him would be a huge loss, but we have neither of those do we? on a scale of 1-10 this is a 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shallyshal Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Most of us are bummed out about losing Lavar, but in all reality, how much do you think our defense will suffer? Will it be tougher to stop the run? Will our pass defense suffer? Will it be harder to create as many turnovers?I'm reluctant to say it's a good thing that losing Lavar will free up more space for scrappy-type players. But I think it actually is. Your thoughts? considering the level of play by thie skins defense the past 2 years essentially without lavar, i would say very little if any... plus, if they sign peterson, carter or witherspoon i would say it will actually be improved. if they sign or trade for ray lewis, i would say clearly improved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldpacker Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Thats like asking how much the world would suffer losing termites. If you were trying to downplay this loss using that analogy meaning -- its not going to hurt us any. That was a very bad analogy. The complete removal of any species could have a huge impact on the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Half of the time he wasn't even in last season and your defense played at a very high level. I'll go out on a limb and say it won't effect it much at all. You sound pretty smart for an Eagles fan. I agree with him a 100% :eaglesuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Not one bit -- he barely played at all last year. And if the CBA gets extended, I suspect we'll be bringing someone else in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Our defense won't suffer. I am sad to see him go (although not so much now that it is being said he could have taken a paycutt and stayed). We did fine w/o him, and will continue to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Did it suffer when he was injured and was benched?Not much if any difference. He hasnt been a difference maker for a few years. Actually it did the defense without him was good, but when healthy and in the playoffs it was great. Lets be honest our Defense is great but is not close to teams like Pittsburg and Denver or NE, we keep scores down but do not have many big plays, and LA was one of our big play guys. This could turn out to be a good move just depends on who replaces him and who we get for the DL. Losing Champ, AP, and LA over the years is huge. Regardless of the reason why they left, they were all playmakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 It ALL depends on who replaces him. Remember the atrocity when Holdman was starting in that spot? While its true LaVar didnt have a lot of sacks/interceptions, he did have a lot of tackles for loss and break up a lot of plays. So if we can get someone in there productive to say Lemar Marshals level I think we will be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifty Gut Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 let's not pretend he didn't do jack last season he was playing through our crazy 5 game win streak, and first playoff win we've had in years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 If you were trying to downplay this loss using that analogy meaning -- its not going to hurt us any. That was a very bad analogy. The complete removal of any species could have a huge impact on the world. Damn you technical science people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.