HapHaszard Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/150805/lavar_arrington_prime_example_of_the.html This time last year, the Green Bay Packers were in their second year of rebuilding under General Manager Ted Thompson and fans, disappointed in a 2005 season that ended with a 4-12 record were calling for him to speed things up by pursuing big named free agents. For the most part, Thompson ignored their requests but, under some media pressure, finally made an offer to free agent linebacker LaVar Arrington, who had previously played for the Washington Redskins. The Packers offered Arrington more money, but he eventually turned them down and chose to play for the New York Giants instead, signing a 7-year, $49 million contract that included a $5.25 million signing bonus. The rejection turned out to be fortunate for the Packers, who improved their outside linebacker spots through the draft and with existing personnel while Arrington played in only 6 games with the Giants, recording 14 tackles and one sack, before getting injured and eventually released by the team. He is reportedly considering retirement. Click on the link above for the rest of the article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 I suspect LA's contract was full of LTBE incentives that were never met. It was an okay gamble for the Giants. I'm glad it didn't work out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilgamesh Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 If only LaVar had become a chess Grand Master and walked away from football after Penn State, we all would have been saved so much trouble... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arrowhead Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Since there's no way to tell whether LaVar would have blown his Achilles, which I can tell you from personal experience is no birthday party, had he signed with the Packers, it's nothing more than speculation. This article is off base in that it suggests that not signing Arrington was smart because, "look what happened to him" when, in reality, he was playing pretty well until he blew his heel. Now, had they used Archuleta as an example, that would have been more on point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isifhan Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 he was playing pretty well until he blew his heel. Playing pretty well? He was playing terrible, did you see any game except the Dallas one where he had the safety? That and the skins game where he blocked the pass were his only two vaguely memorable games. Otherwise the guy was invisible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 This article is off base in that it suggests that not signing Arrington was smart because, "look what happened to him" when, in reality, he was playing pretty well until he blew his heel. Heh... ? By what standards was he "playing pretty well?" He was playing no better than a folding chair the first five games, then had a few decent plays against Dallas before he got hurt. 14 tackles in six games... ? How is that "playing pretty well?" We can "woulda', coulda', shoulda'" his injury forever, but the bottom line was he did get a season-ending injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Playing pretty well? He was playing terrible, did you see any game except the Dallas one where he had the safety? That and the skins game where he blocked the pass were his only two vaguely memorable games. Otherwise the guy was invisible. Seriously. He's the 2nd person this week that's said the same thing about the same discussion. Where do people get this stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Seriously. He's the 2nd person this week that's said the same thing about the same discussion. Where do people get this stuff? It's almost as bad as the revisionist Norval posts over the last few days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Heh... ?By what standards was he "playing pretty well?" He was playing no better than a folding chair the first five games, then had a few decent plays against Dallas before he got hurt. 14 tackles in six games... ? How is that "playing pretty well?" We can "woulda', coulda', shoulda'" his injury forever, but the bottom line was he did get a season-ending injury. Exactly. I don't know where people develop this hype for Redskins players that seems to distort their reality. You see it for all the free agent signings and top draft picks. The Redskins were gonna regret letting Rod Gardner, Pat Ramsey and Fred Smoot go. You wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arrowhead Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Thanks for piling it on folks. I'm not a LaVar sympathizer, far from it. Perhaps my opinion was based on the games that Isifhan suggested, one being a nationally televised game and the other a Skins game. I thought he played okay. For the record, I'll take a pass on Gardner, Ramsey and Smoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurd Cudins Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 **** Lavar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 LA56 was never as good as he thought he was. He was "marketed" to three probowls by making his name in college, followed by a high draft choice, lots of face time for the cameras and jersey sales. Monte Coleman's career was much better here, yet most people don't even know who he was. I think the Giants were pretty smart to give LA an incentive laden contract. No great personal loss for them or a cap hit that will bite them for years to come. As another poster stated above, Arch delux would have been a better comparison, but I don't believe he drew interest from any other clubs when he was a FA. Since no one else wanted him, we gave him a huge salary so that he'd want to play better. That's how our FO works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 The Packers offered Arrington more money, but he eventually turned them down and chose to play for the New York Giants instead, signing a 7-year, $49 million contract that included a $5.25 million signing bonus OK this is my favorite part of the article - he returns $4 million here, and then signs for LESS money to go to the Giants? I have no problem letting someone that dumb go. Seriously, this guy needs a financial advisor, badly. He's going to end up like Hammer (formerly M.C. Hammer) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. S Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 hey, I liked Rod Gardner. Nice guy off-field, just somewhat of an idiot on field. He shoulda tried to stay through 2005, I think we could have really used him alongside Moss down the stretch. Oh well, he then doesn't catch on anywhere else, so I guess im probably wrong. Bust, yes, but I would take 600-700 receiving yards from a #2/3 receiver. Lavar was hyped up to be the next Lawerence Taylor. Even when he went to New York he tried to hype that up himself. He was on pace to doing it, but then faltered. I don't blame him completely though, but if a lesser talented player in Marcus looks as good as he did in 2004/2005, Lavar surely should have as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedlamVR Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Coleman was a beast it is a shame no onw really remembers him interestingly he was also a converted safety like Marshell... but anyway.... I hink this article is wacked because it is written as a proof to a hypothesis for a hypothesis that was not possed before the results were known . Its like saying I have a red hat therefore all hats must be red. Just wrong. Arrington was having a hard time to find a contract because of his injuries and he was failing physicals any team signing him new he was damaged goods but at the same time he had shown he could play ball . The Giants took a "calculated risk" and unfortunatly they lost. But to say that GB were smart for not taking that risk is like saying someone who doesn't buy a lottery ticket is smart because they didn't blow $5 on a ticket but then they had no chance to win either ... Sometimes it is smart to keep your hands in your pocket but other times you have to take a gamble and this is what is wrong in my opinion with the article . For every FA bust I can show you 3 or 4 times as many draft picks that wash out but the draft is a great way to get young superstars but to think of it of anything else than a sweepstake is miss guided. The crazy thing about this article is he picks on Arrington as an example of a FA bust and with a few exceptions he concudes all FA were busts but cannot the same argument be made about Jeff George, Peter Warrick, Ricky Williams, Courty Brown, Heath Shuler, Todd Pinkerson, Alki Smith, Tim Couch, Cade McCown, Ki Janna Carter, Tony Manderitch, Larawance Phillips, Desmond Howard, Blair Thomas, Andre Ware, Ryan Leaf, Bruce Pickens, and maybe even Broderick Bunkley and Bobby Carpinter as reasons not to pick in the first round of the draft because all of these were first round busts so all first round picks must be busts. The thing is the problem is not how you get the player but how you get the player to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinzOwnU Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Playing pretty well? He was playing terrible, did you see any game except the Dallas one where he had the safety? That and the skins game where he blocked the pass were his only two vaguely memorable games. Otherwise the guy was invisible. Heh. So true. I'm not even going to give him credit for blocking a Brunell pass because that is something that the grass manages to do on 20% of his throws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhodatSkinsFan? Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 wow.. i'm still amazed at how much hatred there is for LaVar... WOW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Thanks for piling it on folks. I'm not a LaVar sympathizer, far from it. Perhaps my opinion was based on the games that Isifhan suggested, one being a nationally televised game and the other a Skins game. I thought he played okay.For the record, I'll take a pass on Gardner, Ramsey and Smoot. Piling on is what we do best at ES, arrowhead... :laugh: Don't take it personally... HTTR! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom [Giants fan] Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 He was improving. He didn't start out well. But he started playing well the last couple of games he played. And yes, I did see the Giant games. But there was minimal risk with Arrington for the Giants because of how his contract was made up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptr77 Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 wow.. i'm still amazed at how much hatred there is for LaVar... WOW He did pretty much bad mouth the skins whenever he got the chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dent19 Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Playing pretty well? He was playing terrible, did you see any game except the Dallas one where he had the safety? That and the skins game where he blocked the pass were his only two vaguely memorable games. Otherwise the guy was invisible. What did AA do?.......NOTHING What did AC do?.......Nohing til the 9th game.... then marginal at best... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 What did AA do?.......NOTHINGWhat did AC do?.......Nohing til the 9th game.... then marginal at best... What does that have to do with Sybil Arrington? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scruffylookin Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Since there's no way to tell whether LaVar would have blown his Achilles, which I can tell you from personal experience is no birthday party, had he signed with the Packers, it's nothing more than speculation. This article is off base in that it suggests that not signing Arrington was smart because, "look what happened to him" when, in reality, he was playing pretty well until he blew his heel. Now, had they used Archuleta as an example, that would have been more on point. Agreed. When the Giants signed LaVar, he was coming off a solid 2005 season. He was still not completely back from his 2004 injury, but played certainly well enough to justify them giving him a shot. You can't predict a career ending injury. Exactly. I don't know where people develop this hype for Redskins players that seems to distort their reality. You see it for all the free agent signings and top draft picks.The Redskins were gonna regret letting Rod Gardner, Pat Ramsey and Fred Smoot go. You wait and see. Well, 3 seasons later and we still need at least a 2nd corner and a 2nd wide receiver, so yeah I'd say right now we do seem to regret letting Rod Gardner and Fred Smoot go since we have as of yet actually replaced them with better performing players. LA56 was never as good as he thought he was. He was "marketed" to three probowls by making his name in college, followed by a high draft choice, lots of face time for the cameras and jersey sales. Monte Coleman's career was much better here, yet most people don't even know who he was. BS LaVar was not "marketed" to 3 pro bowls. That's just garbage. If that were true, he would have gone to the pro bowl his first season here and he didn't. In fact with the "hype" he had coming into the league, people were looking for him to fail. I still remember his very first preseason game his rookie year when the Skins played Tampa and ESPN showed some missed tackles on LA's part and talked about an "disappointing" debut by LaVar. The fact that LaVar actually gained the respect of his peers by making the pro bowl (while playing in 3 different defenses, with different personel around him facts that haters never like to address) is a credit to him. As for Coleman, he was a nice role player who played a long time in a different era. As a starting linebacker (which was rare), Coleman was nowhere near the player LaVar was. The only player who I can remember play linebacker better than LaVar for the Redskins was Ken Harvey. The other contender is Wilbur Marshall but Wilbur really didn't get things going (because he and Petitbon butted heads) until his last two seasons here in DC. He did pretty much bad mouth the skins whenever he got the chance. He badmouthed the way he was treated. Considering the problems others have had with this defensive coaching staff and the ultimate firing of Dale Lindsey, I think LaVar has been vindicated. He always maintained his love for the fans. Contrast that with Ryan Clark and his badmouthing the Skins fans versus Steeler fans. LaVar hatred is something that I will never understand and rarely let go unchallenged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
floydfurillo Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Actually, the Giants defense as a whole was not playing as well as they expected until the players went to the defensive coordinator and asked him to simplify the schemes and play to the players strengths. Not so coincidently, that was when Arrington was having his good game against Dallas before he got injured. Imagine that, a coach adjusting his schemes to the players and not the other way around. Greg Williams and Dale Lindsey take note. Oh thats right, the latter is no longer here. Good riddance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santana_Fan Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Some people need to stop the hating on Arrington. I think he was mistreated. I would be offended too, if they started Warrick Holdman over me. Even though he may not have been doing the things that Greg Williams asked of him, I still KNOW he would have played alot better than Holdman did. I cant believe there were people who actually felt Holdman should start over him. I find it funny how most people werent talking trash about him, until he left...but when he was here, he was good and some people even had his # or name for their usernames. I dont care what anyone says, I will always like him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.