Jethrodsp Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Anyone who thinks that our D was as good the last two years without Lavar in the lineup is a fool. When he was inserted into the lineup at the end of the year, our D got much better and without him, we wouldnt have won 5 straight to make the playoffs. While Lavar stuck his foot in his mouth on more than one occasion, his play on the field didnt suffer. As for the sack numbers, he wasnt really asked to rush the passer and when he was, opposing teams looked to double him on the outside just as they have always done. Tell me that our D was just as good against Denver and KC without Lavar in the lineup full time? You think Greg Williams finally inserted him because it made our defense.........stay the same? All you Lavar haters will eat crow when the defense takes the field next season. Although we may find a decent replacement, anything short of a physical presence like Lavar will not yield the same results and we could see repeats of the long runs that gashed our defense early in the season and cost us at least 2 games. This sucks. Lavar should be in B&G. Its just too bad that his contract was so prohibitive to that happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 not too much since we never really used him in the gibbs/williams era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 ntoro...well that's sure betting on the come! willing to risk season tickets (if you had them) on that one?! No, but I'm just offerring an alternative scenario. Stranger things have happened, one can say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeSellers45 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Look at it this way, ever since LA has rarely played the last two years, we have had the #3 and #9 defense. I doesn't matter that we lost LA. The only way we will suffer is if we lose other members of defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant15fromNJ Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 I think it depends on who we pick up but I know and I am sure everyone here knows that one player doesn't make or break a Defence. We will be fine but its just not going to be the same with #56 not out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuchip703 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Anyone who thinks that our D was as good the last two years without Lavar in the lineup is a fool. When he was inserted into the lineup at the end of the year, our D got much better and without him, we wouldnt have won 5 straight to make the playoffs.While Lavar stuck his foot in his mouth on more than one occasion, his play on the field didnt suffer. As for the sack numbers, he wasnt really asked to rush the passer and when he was, opposing teams looked to double him on the outside just as they have always done. Tell me that our D was just as good against Denver and KC without Lavar in the lineup full time? You think Greg Williams finally inserted him because it made our defense.........stay the same? All you Lavar haters will eat crow when the defense takes the field next season. Although we may find a decent replacement, anything short of a physical presence like Lavar will not yield the same results and we could see repeats of the long runs that gashed our defense early in the season and cost us at least 2 games. This sucks. Lavar should be in B&G. Its just too bad that his contract was so prohibitive to that happening. If I recall correctly our defense held the Broncos outside of two runs to about 200 yards of offense...take the two runs away and it was like 110. They were ranked in the top 5 in the NFL before the 1st Giants game so statistically they didn't get any better with him in the lineup. He was a playmaker but sometimes he could be a play causer as well. Williams system doesn't require Lavars to be in their at lb...besides we have a better player in Washington, it requires discipline all the time. I dont' think we will suffer without him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKiNz Jus 2 sick Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 our D with Lavar not at 100% was good so all you really need to replace lavar is an average OLB to replace him to get the same results but just think with a 100% lavar in our Defence that could have pushed us over the edge assuming we took care of our D-Line problems but really im more worried about what team he lands on because the year after players come back from knee surgery they play ALOT better then the year they come back because there usually not at 100% until the year after Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2647 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Losing Lavar is no loss. He will just go somewhere else and get hurt as Lavar intends to do. The Defense has gotten long just fine without him and they will undoubtably do it again! I just hope it will bring a little more Ofense and work on the D-line the skins will be fine. Just my 2 cents not tring to make anyone mad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 If Holdman fills his spot I will be PISSED off. Anyone but the invisible man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenhunter7 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 I dont think he will be missed at all on the field but from what everyone says about him is that he was a well liked guy and those are hard to replace in a locker room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbuzz1962 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 This is starting to get old fellas. What was our record when Arrington was a starter without Joe Gibbs or Greg Williams? I don't even want to post it. This NFL is about the team, not the individual. Had Arrington smartened up, he would still be a Redskin. He made his bed, he lied to all Redskin fans with his all I want to be is a Redskin BS. He was willing to write a check for 4 million dollars to get out of Washington DC. Does that sound like someone who just wants to be a Redskin?? I read his bluff when he dished it out, and no one would accept it. I told you all in the one or two threads that I started on this man, that he would not be a Redskin this season, and I took a lot of grief for it. Well, I told you so, I told you so. For all of you who worshiped this guy, I apologize for Arrington, lying to you, and making fools out of those who swore he would not leave this team. He not only left, he was willing to give up 4 million dollars?? Come on. That is a lot of money. I can't fathom writing off 4 million dollars just to let me go somewhere without any promise of a big contract. Good riddons Lavar, I hope you are finally where you want to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amm11387 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Our defense will be better why Al Saunders think about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Depends on who is his replacement. If its holdman who Lavar matched in tackles in 3 quarters then a great deal. But if we address the D line move Marshal to WL and groom one of our youngins like a McCune or find one in free agency it will be minimal. The question will then be if Lavar is on the iggles or midgets how do we contain him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phixius Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 We wont suffer. This team will fight on. I like McCune and Clemons chances being OLB along with Marshall and Washington. There nothing to worry about. Let LaVar warm-up someone else bench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 "This is starting to get old fellas. What was our record when Arrington was a starter without Joe Gibbs or Greg Williams? I don't even want to post it." well...that's really great as far as cliches go. but that 5-11 record...whata ya think? maybe the offense had a lot to do with it? maybe the defense wasn't effective enough to make the record better? overall ranking means squat - it's like leading the NFL in total passing but losing in the first round of the playoffs every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OVCChairman Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 he only played half last season, why do people think we are losing the most pivotal person on the team? Gregg Williams is a master of Schemes, he puts people where they need to be. I loved Lavar and i hate to see him go, but you know what, Gibbs made a decision, Arrington made a decision, Williams will get it taken care of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazhog Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Personally, I believe it to be a good move to let L.A. move on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailSkinz1 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? Our defense won't suffer at all. It didn't suffer last year without him. This is a good thing. I think most people are upset because now they have a jersey they can't wear. Hail, H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailSkinz1 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Anyone who thinks that our D was as good the last two years without Lavar in the lineup is a fool. When he was inserted into the lineup at the end of the year, our D got much better and without him, we wouldnt have won 5 straight to make the playoffs.While Lavar stuck his foot in his mouth on more than one occasion, his play on the field didnt suffer. As for the sack numbers, he wasnt really asked to rush the passer and when he was, opposing teams looked to double him on the outside just as they have always done. Tell me that our D was just as good against Denver and KC without Lavar in the lineup full time? You think Greg Williams finally inserted him because it made our defense.........stay the same? All you Lavar haters will eat crow when the defense takes the field next season. Although we may find a decent replacement, anything short of a physical presence like Lavar will not yield the same results and we could see repeats of the long runs that gashed our defense early in the season and cost us at least 2 games. This sucks. Lavar should be in B&G. Its just too bad that his contract was so prohibitive to that happening. Guess I'm a fool. Our defense got better not because of Arrington, but because of Cornelius Griffin and Phillip Daniels. As you'll recall, they returned to the lineup, healthy, at that time. Remember how many balls they batted down, including the one LA intercepted against the Bucs? Hail, H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbuzz1962 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 "This is starting to get old fellas. What was our record when Arrington was a starter without Joe Gibbs or Greg Williams? I don't even want to post it."well...that's really great as far as cliches go. but that 5-11 record...whata ya think? maybe the offense had a lot to do with it? maybe the defense wasn't effective enough to make the record better? overall ranking means squat - it's like leading the NFL in total passing but losing in the first round of the playoffs every year. Bulgaria? What does that have to do with Arrington turning his back on his beloved fans? Why do you keep supporting a player that no more wants to be a Redskin? A player instead of restructuring the contract, like a loyal player would, to turning your back on so many fans who thought the world revolved around you? A player who instead of working with the team, buys himself out with a fortune? He no more wanted to be a Redskin than a Philly, Dallas, or Giants fan. He BS'd everyone who supported and believed him. " All I want is to be a Redskin man":doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portis&taylor Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 I dont think we will suffer at all we where better without him in 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MumboSauce Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 I think alot of us liked LaVar...the attitude, passion etc. he brought to the field when he played. But he didn't seem to be an impact player anymore..and I hate to say we can probably promote or bring in another guy that will fill that spot, be disciplined, tackle well, make some plays, and the defense won't miss a beat, nor miss Arrington much. So replace the position effectively?, Yes...replace the man? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChampSkinsFanatic Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Man Im not gonna even lie, I didnt even read one post in this thread yet, but GET RID OF DALE LINDSEY, that _______ just cost us Lavar and messed up the defense for years to come Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 GET RID OF DALE LINDSEY, that _______ just cost us Lavar and messed up the defense for years to come Really??? Seems like year before last, with Lavar on the shelf, we we're top three in defense and this year, with Lavar playing we're top ten. I don't think Lindsey is the problem. BTW, just who's side are you on here? Redskins fan or Lavar fan?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9_to_42_td Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Only thing we are losing is his name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.