SlobberKnockinFootball Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Not a good idea Frank :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfujskins Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Man, I cant believe so many people think that LaVar is exspendable:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwall-2 Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Not a bad idea.Lets face it,we've been loosing with him.So if they can trade him and fill up some holes,why not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfujskins Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Cant wait to see what Kilmer17 says about this:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bricucci Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 :eaglesuck :dallasuck :gaintsuck AMEN! I love Lavar Arrington but it would benefit the Skins greatly to move on an free up tremendous cap space, plus he is not a free agent and the best thing to do would be to trade him. Lavar is playmaker that plays his way out of position more often than not. He looks good on highlight films but is way too often out of position why do you think the D has been better without him. They haven't missed a beat I think you could move Pierce back to his natural position and find a mlb who is more than adequate. Dumping Samuels, Arrington and Gardner and taking the Brunnell hit next year would put the skins in great cap shape and would allow them to sign Gibbs type players. I'm a big Lavar fan but team could be better off without him!!! Seems to me Gibbs won 3 superbowls his biggest stars on the team were OL and WR seems to me those are our two biggest weaknesses. We need more of this type of guy and the one we have is on crutches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 STOP THE INSANITY! There is more value to a team than pure cap numbers. LaVar is part of the solution NOT the problem. I got it, glad to see you're "thinking out of the box", but .........uh........NO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Originally posted by bricucci :eaglesuck :dallasuck :gaintsuck AMEN! I love Lavar Arrington but it would benefit the Skins greatly to move on an free up tremendous cap space, plus he is not a free agent and the best thing to do would be to trade him. Do you have any idea how much trading him will kill our cap? We'll have to eat the entire SB in one year. Stupid, stupid idea. Same as trading him. His contract is not going to be negated. He has nothing to stand on at arbitration, especially considering his long absence from the field. He's not going anywhere. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwall-2 Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 People are always saying LA is a playmaker,that's fine and dandy but our defense hasn't missed a beat without him.And you don't have to have a playmaker to have a great defense.All you need is good,smart players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookie0720 Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Seriously why would you trade a pass rushing LB with speed and playmaking ability for unknown quantities? Not to mention the cap hit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Originally posted by bwall-2 People are always saying LA is a playmaker,that's fine and dandy but our defense hasn't missed a beat without him.And you don't have to have a playmaker to have a great defense.All you need is good,smart players. When we lost Bowen, we lost a key component of the Blitz package. When we lost Lavar, we lost someone who could line up as a DE and defend the pass as well as run. Don't fool yourself into thinking the Defense is as good as it can be without him or even Bowen. Lavar really only played one strong game because he was injured against Tampa. Don't get fooled into thinking there's no downgrade from him to Marshall in this sytem. There most definately is. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fpickering Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 We were effective against the run today with the LB's we had in there. I really like Clemons too. I know I will get a lot of flack but Frank may have been onto something. I need to check out the possible scenarios though before I decide on my position. One thing is for certain.... our defense is playing solid without him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akhhorus Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 trading Lavar with his current contract would lead to 22 million dollar cap charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwall-2 Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 What I'm saying is that the defense we have right now is superbowl quality without LA.Grated they might be better with him,but they don't need him.And if they can fill up some of our holes on the O-Line and D-Line by trading LA,then so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Stupid to trade LaVar. Our D is great without him, yes. But how many turnovers have we forced this year? Not all that many... Put LaVar in there, that numbers soars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASkinsfan28 Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 We need more speed on D so we get rid of one of the fastest line backers in the league? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwall-2 Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Originally posted by GASkinsfan28 We need more speed on D so we get rid of one of the fastest line backers in the league? I didn't realize we were that slow on defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyRules Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Probably get beat up over this one, but I can't say that we have missed Lavar with the way the rest of the LB's have been playing. And yes, that thought has crossed my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walking Deadman Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Anybody think moving to a 3-4 (barring Barrow gets healthy) with our LB's? No way we get rid of Lavar---his hits alone are worth him being on this team. He is a playmaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter's Better Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Originally posted by jtyler42 Herzog just suggested that we get rid of Lavar and attempt to gain draft picks to upgrade our team speed in the draft...He said that the D is playing fine w/out him and that he really hasnt played that well when he was in there.... What do you think? We can't afford to take the pro-rated signing bonus hit. -- Only way this would work if the NFL arbitrator "voids" the contract over the 8 million dollar "dispute" ; which I doubt will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 neither Arrington or Samuels has lived up to the hype or the contracts. Arrington is not Wilber Marshall circa 1991 and Samuels is not Joe Jacoby or Jim Lachey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfujskins Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Originally posted by bwall-2 What I'm saying is that the defense we have right now is superbowl quality without LA.Grated they might be better with him,but they don't need him.And if they can fill up some of our holes on the O-Line and D-Line by trading LA,then so be it. Thats like saying the Eagles didnt nead McNabb when Feely was in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B&G Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Amen to that Bulldog. Lavar is a personal favorite but if we could avoid the cap hit and could get two top choices or a very good player and a top pick, I'd have to consider it. We have a great defense without Lavar. Could he add to that? Maybe. I've never thought Lavar has lived up to his potential as a team player. Compare him to Ray Lewis and you'll understand my point of view. On the other hand, our offense is an insult to nature. If we're going to be competitive at all next year, we have to get some players because, well, we just don't have the horses right now. I've been a proponent of drafting defense the last several years but not in 2005. Somehow, we have to stablize our OL and get a big play WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins26 Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 I think Lavar has lived up to his contract. I dont think Samuels has though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 This isn't Madden guys. You don't let go of one of your stars to get a couple draft picks. In Madden, you know how they're gonna turn out, in real life you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.