dreamshatterer Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Regardless how he left and what he has said or if he was the "face of the franchise", bone on bone knee and a achilles tear? Just say no!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 His version of events sounds sort of like a condensed version of yours. The important difference being the Coaches never once said a word publicly about him, even as he was dragging people through the mud on John Thompson's show on a weekly bases. That's one very big and important difference. No one said a word until the whole thing with Dale Lindsay blew up and that was after he was cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointyfootball Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Regardless how he left and what he has said or if he was the "face of the franchise", bone on bone knee and a achilles tear? Just say no!!! Agreed. He's done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 OK, although your version sounded similiar to mine. I know that LA was obviously very upset over his agent's mishandling of his contract and loss of $6mil. My main point was that from 2000-2003ish, he was the face of the franchise. Skins fans salivated and displayed major man crushes on him (similar to ST now). Then, because he was upset at being benched, and not just benched but wouldn't play a single snap for several weeks in a row on defense, he let his frustrations get the better of him and complained. Is that why fans hate him? No matter what, he would have been more effective than Holdman this year, that's for sure. The LA story is quite similiar to the AA story, except at least LA was inherited by the coaching staff and they can claim "not our selection". AA however, is a much different story. He was the face of a perennially losing franchise who was upset when the attention got diverted from him to Coach Gibbs. His first words were that Coach Gibbs had to "show him something." A Coach with three rings needed to prove something to LaVar Arrington? No one cares if he got upset for whatever reason. The problem was his public lying on a weekly basis. He got on the radio and lied to everyone and people ate it up. Lies such as saying he didn't know why he wasn't playing when even Shawn Springs said the guy knew exactly why. Lies like he'd rather retire than be elsewhere. The list when on and on. The guy was injured, said he was fine, then said he was rushed back. I mean... how much many more personalities does this guy have locked within him... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switchgear Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 His version of events sounds sort of like a condensed version of yours. The big difference is the injury he suffered in 2004. Up until that he had been the face of the defense, which had been mediocre overall. In 2004, Lavar got injured early in the season, yet without him the defense was doing extremely well, finishing the year ranked third. This is when Lavar started really screwing up, in my opinion. He may have had good intentions (wanting to make a really good defense even better) or have been looking out for himself, but for whatever reason he said the coaches were holding him out even though he was healthy. Then, when he got injured again, he blamed the coaches for rushing him back in when he wasn't healthy. I think that this pissed the coaches off to no end, and as a result they acted unprofessionally as pointed out earlier in the thread, but from the outside looking in it certainly seems like Lavar started off the disagreement that culminated in him buying out his contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switchgear Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Wait, so a team replacing starters at 5 critical positions is a bad thing for NFC East fans?I guess that's the type of logic that gets you excited over the last Redskins offseason. Continuity is what scares me. Continuity IS a good thing, provided you have good players. Ditching Coles and Westbrook (Micheal) for Santana Moss was the right thing to do. The cornerbacks you guys released a few years back (their names escape me) didn't seem to hurt the Eagles. If you think the Giants would be better off with Lavar than with Briggs (or even a mid-level FA replacement), more power to you, but continuity isn't always for the best. Otherwise there'd be a bunch of 80 somethings playing still. Sure, their athletic ability has declined, but... Continuity!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OWUeagleMD Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Continuity IS a good thing, provided you have good players. Ditching Coles and Westbrook (Micheal) for Santana Moss was the right thing to do. The cornerbacks you guys released a few years back (their names escape me) didn't seem to hurt the Eagles. If you think the Giants would be better off with Lavar than with Briggs (or even a mid-level FA replacement), more power to you, but continuity isn't always for the best. Otherwise there'd be a bunch of 80 somethings playing still. Sure, their athletic ability has declined, but... Continuity!!! It's possible to bring in replacements without disrupting coninuity. For instance, the cornerback replacements you mentioned for the Eagles a few years ago had been drafted by the Eagles two years earlier, had developed within the system, and then replaced their aged predecessors. Basically, your first example proved why your second example was irrelevent. If the Giants are cutting these guys so they can load up and make an impact in free agency then I am very excited. While Lance Briggs is a good player, even someone of his skill presents some questions. Namely, how will he react to no longer playing alongside Brian Urlacher? How will he react to a new system? If I were to guess right now, I think the answer to both those questions would be pretty positive for Briggs. Nonetheless, they are reasonable questions to ask. And that's just one position. Throw in RB, where perhaps they make a run at Dominic Rhodes, and you have another series of questions presented. Move to left tackle, where, let's say they make a run at Leonard Davis, and you have another series of questions. What if they decide to invest more at DT or FS? The more positions they look to upgrade, the higher the probability they'll be yet another team burnt by the myth that available free agents always represent upgrades. It's become a cliche at this point, but the point remains valid. Unrestricted free agents are available for a reason. Sometimes they are strictly victims of the numbers crunch. Mostly, though, coaches who watched them play every day for four years rendered them expendable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom [Giants fan] Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 A big reason these moves were made is because the Giants are trying to deal with injury concerns before they happen. Emmons and Arrington are both injury prone so that is why they were cut. As far as Petitgout goes, he has had back issues and now his leg. Going by this theory, it does surprise me Tim Carter is still on the team although he did make it through a whole season this year. That being said, the Giants will probably go after Samuels or Clements. They are now $20 million under the cap with the net savings of $1.6 million from those three cuts plus the savings from Barber and Whitfield retiring. Apparently, Reese has his own idea of how to run things and it will be interesting to see how it works. Hopefully, it leads to fewer injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 how was arringtons contract structured? it was 7 years, 49 million, but they cut him after one. wouldnt there be a cap hit of some kind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 how was arringtons contract structured? it was 7 years, 49 million, but they cut him after one. wouldnt there be a cap hit of some kind? I believe they eat the $7M or $8M dollar bonus...but maybe not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurd Cudins Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 how was arringtons contract structured? it was 7 years, 49 million, but they cut him after one. wouldnt there be a cap hit of some kind?They are taking a $1.5 million hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurd Cudins Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Arrington's release costs team nearly $1.5 million Petitgout saves team around $3.2 million Emmons saves team $1 million per KFFL sorry, the links don't work and I don't know how to fix them, but the #'s are accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptr77 Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I believe they eat the $7M or $8M dollar bonus...but maybe not. Small cap hit for lavar, less than 2 mill, next year a lot of money is freed up by all three players. I thought they would give lavar another year. Emmons should of been gone last year. Petitgout must be hurt badly, recovering badly, or they must really have been impressed with diehl. Petitgout apparently won't be ready for a physical in FA so he will probably have to take a pretty poor deal somewhere in the league, he said he wouldn't be against coming back to the giants in one article i read (someone posted it on the giants forum). I wonder if he wouldn't restructure so the giants cut him. A false start machine LT with a bad back and broken leg shouldn't make 5 mill a year. Petitgout was a good technician in pass blocking and good run blocker though. I want to see what happens to strahan (old, 3 sacks), toomer (old, injured), and morton (injured, blows). Toomer and strahan need to restructure, and tuck,osi, awasom, and kiwi can cover the end spots. Toomer is needed but i doubt reese wants to pay his current salary. I'm kind of mad they haven't cut morton yet: mcquarters, moss, jennings, and ward all provide depth and couldn't do worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.