Lavar Arrinton.... Merged

KPrince1975 · Post by **KPrince1975** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:01 pm

Lavar Arrington is a playmaker. End of Story! I think the coaches need to swallow some of their pride, and get him in the game more often. They need to realize that if Lavar's ego gets smashed down to nothing, he isn't going to be worth a lot to this team. I am not giving up on this situation because I completely believe in what Gibbs is preaching. We are 3-0 baby. I know he isn't LT, but we need to break the chains and let this monster do some damage.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:01 pm

Who here can say with 100% accuracy that Lavar is at 100%? He may be at 100% in terms of not being injured but he has been away from the game for a LONG time. He may still not be in "game form"? I think that they're seeing something in the practices that we're not.

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:04 pm

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Who here can say with 100% accuracy that Lavar is at 100%? He may be at 100% in terms of not being injured but he has been away from the game for a LONG time. He may still not be in "game form"? I think that they're seeing something in the practices that we're not.

You're right, we don't know - and that's a fair point. I still maintain that even if LaVar isn't ready to play forty snaps a game, he can still be of use as a pass-rusher in obvious passing situations. Being in "game form" is mostly about stamina.

SkinzCanes · Post by **SkinzCanes** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:05 pm

Lavar should have to abide by the same rules as everyone else to earn back his spot.

But see that's what I don't understand. Gibbs is an old school guy and in his first time around as head coach here players didn't lose their spots because of injuries. Jansen didn't have to earn back his spot, it was just assumed that he would start once healthy and he got the first team snaps as soon as he came back. Hall is probably going to replace Novack just as soon as he is healthy enough to play again. If Portis got hurt I bet he'd be back in the starting lineup as soon as possible. So why is it different with Lavar?

KPrince1975 · Post by **KPrince1975** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:07 pm

SkinzCanes wrote:
Lavar should have to abide by the same rules as everyone else to earn back his spot.

But see that's what I don't understand. Gibbs is an old school guy and in his first time around as head coach here players didn't lose their spots because of injuries. Jansen didn't have to earn back his spot, it was just assumed that he would start once healthy and he got the first team snaps as soon as he came back. Hall is probably going to replace Novack just as soon as he is healthy enough to play again. If Portis got hurt I bet he'd be back in the starting lineup as soon as possible. So why is it different with Lavar?

Good Point! I have the same question. There is a lot more going on here than, "I just think he isn't playing well in practice."

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:08 pm

SkinzCanes wrote:
Lavar should have to abide by the same rules as everyone else to earn back his spot.

But see that's what I don't understand. Gibbs is an old school guy and in his first time around as head coach here players didn't lose their spots because of injuries. Jansen didn't have to earn back his spot, it was just assumed that he would start once healthy and he got the first team snaps as soon as he came back. Hall is probably going to replace Novack just as soon as he is healthy enough to play again. If Portis got hurt I bet he'd be back in the starting lineup as soon as possible. So why is it different with Lavar?

Lavar may NOT be outplaying Holdman in practice. I've said that at least 20 times. Far fetched? Maybe. Unbelievable to some? Most likely.

This is consitent to what Gregg said about Clark. Clark would NOT play until he had some time in practice. He didn't play for the 1st two games because he got injured in preseason. He didn't show his face until yesterday.

McCants didn't practice well and got cut.

Jake · Post by **Jake** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:14 pm

Merged LA Talk Show threads.

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:18 pm

Chris Luva Luva wrote:This is consitent to what Gregg said about Clark. Clark would NOT play until he had some time in practice. He didn't play for the 1st two games because he got injured in preseason. He didn't show his face until yesterday.

McCants didn't practice well and got cut.

Clark and McCants can't hold a candle to LaVar Arrington.

If LaVar Arrington is truly healthy and cooperative, the coaches should be able to find a way to use him. An NFL coaching staff as smart as the Redskins' should be able to use a player as talented as LaVar Arrington. Period.

Either he is still hurt, or he is being a problem.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:20 pm

SkinzCanes wrote:..This really doesn't make any sense.....Arguably the most talented player on our defense is behind Holdman on the depth chart.

Which part? The fact that we are 3-0 OR the possibility that our coaches are not making personnel decisions on who to play and when and that these decisions do not suit some of the fans?

We do not know the full story here and should let the people who know best handle it. We are 3-0.

Scottskins · Post by **Scottskins** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:21 pm

Lavar may be talented, but so what? If he won't play within the system, then he won't play. That's my guess as to why he's not starting yet. He either doesn't grasp the defense(possible, but not likely since all he's had is time to learn it), or he just won't play within the system even in practice. This coaching staff wouldn't sit him for spite. There is a reason, and Gibbs says he's healthy, so what else could it be?

die cowboys die · Post by **die cowboys die** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:23 pm

``He's not a starter and hasn't started,'' Gibbs said. ``I know he's disappointed in not making more of an impact, not playing more, but I think it's something we have to work our way through. I think it's one of those things scheme-wise for our defense, it's the best way I would answer that. We've got a lot of guys that are talented guys who can do a lot of things for us. ... Health-wise, I think he's back.''

this is absolute and total crap. if you don't want to play him, fine, but the fans deserve a better answer than this, gibbs.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:24 pm

Steve Spurrier III wrote:
Chris Luva Luva wrote:This is consitent to what Gregg said about Clark. Clark would NOT play until he had some time in practice. He didn't play for the 1st two games because he got injured in preseason. He didn't show his face until yesterday.

McCants didn't practice well and got cut.

Clark and McCants can't hold a candle to LaVar Arrington.

If LaVar Arrington is truly healthy and cooperative, the coaches should be able to find a way to use him. An NFL coaching staff as smart as the Redskins' should be able to use a player as talented as LaVar Arrington. Period.

Either he is still hurt, or he is being a problem.

I completely DISAGREE with you. You're way of classifying Lavar above others is just what our coaches are getting away from and I love it. Lavar is not special, he is expendable and we DONT need him.

Putting a player on a pedestal above his teammates DESTROYS chemistry. Why are our "lesser" players going to try to improve if they know they wont have a chance to excel here?

Allowing Lavar to break the rules that everyone else is held to is detrimental to team chemistry and Im glad they wont do it!

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:24 pm

It has to be more than him just not playing within the system. Using him as a pass-rushing end would mean that he wouldn't even have the opportunity to freelance, right? It's not like he's going to drop in to coverage instead of rushing the passer.

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:29 pm

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I completely DISAGREE with you. You're way of classifying Lavar above others is just what our coaches are getting away from and I love it. Lavar is not special, he is expendable and we DONT need him.

Bobby Knight once said something like, "Any coach who tells you he treats all his players equally is either a liar or a terrible coach."

Look, I'm not saying that he should be the starting linebacker just because he is LaVar Arrington and he makes a billion dollars. If the coaches think Holdman gives us a better chance to win, then he should be starting.

But I've got news for you, Arrington is special. Sean Taylor is special. (You think if Ryan Clark got in to the stuff Taylor did this offseason he would still be here?) They are freaks of nature, and if they are used properly they give us a better chance of winning games.

EDIT: If Arrington is breaking team rules or refusing to play special teams or show up to meetings, that's a different story. But if he is ready to go and not being a problem, waiting two weeks before you start using him is ridiculous.

SkinzCanes · Post by **SkinzCanes** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:30 pm

It has to be more than him just not playing within the system. Using him as a pass-rushing end would mean that he wouldn't even have the opportunity to freelance, right? It's not like he's going to drop in to coverage instead of rushing the passer.

That pretty much sums it up. Something else has to be going on here and I think that the coaches need to explain what is going on because with all of this speculation this is going to turn into a distraction at some point. We are 3-0 for this first time since 1991 and the first question that Gibbs got today during the radio show was about Lavar. If he is healthy then get him back into the linebacker rotation or line him up at defensive end. If he's not healthy or is healthy but is being a problem then deactivate him.

Scottskins · Post by **Scottskins** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:32 pm

die cowboys die wrote:
``He's not a starter and hasn't started,'' Gibbs said. ``I know he's disappointed in not making more of an impact, not playing more, but I think it's something we have to work our way through. I think it's one of those things scheme-wise for our defense, it's the best way I would answer that. We've got a lot of guys that are talented guys who can do a lot of things for us. ... Health-wise, I think he's back.''

this is absolute and total crap. if you don't want to play him, fine, but the fans deserve a better answer than this, gibbs.

how so? he's not the starter. how else could he explain it any better without targeting a player? Gibbs never singles out players like you seem to want him to do. Lavar is not currently good enough to start. Seems like a pretty good explanation to me...

Scottskins · Post by **Scottskins** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:36 pm

Steve Spurrier III wrote:
Chris Luva Luva wrote:I completely DISAGREE with you. You're way of classifying Lavar above others is just what our coaches are getting away from and I love it. Lavar is not special, he is expendable and we DONT need him.

Bobby Knight once said something like, "Any coach who tells you he treats all his players equally is either a liar or a terrible coach."

Look, I'm not saying that he should be the starting linebacker just because he is LaVar Arrington and he makes a billion dollars. If the coaches think Holdman gives us a better chance to win, then he should be starting.

But I've got news for you, Arrington is special. Sean Taylor is specail. (You think if Ryan Clark got in to the stuff Taylor did this offseason he would still be here?) They are freaks of nature, and if they are used properly they give us a better chance of winning games.

EDIT: If Arrington is breaking team rules or refusing to play special teams or show up to meetings, that's a different story. But if he is ready to go and not being a problem, waiting two weeks before you start using him is ridiculous.

Lol, who cares what Bobby Knight said? He's a psycho and this aint college basketball. One or two great players is all you need in college basketball. That won't get it done in the NFL and in the NFL, every single player on the field has an ego and is a man. College basketball is mostly won by having more skill players than the other team, and the boys that play it are just that...boys who do what they are told without regard to their own egos. Unless of course they are those few special players...

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:41 pm

Steve Spurrier III wrote:
Chris Luva Luva wrote:I completely DISAGREE with you. You're way of classifying Lavar above others is just what our coaches are getting away from and I love it. Lavar is not special, he is expendable and we DONT need him.

Bobby Knight once said something like, "Any coach who tells you he treats all his players equally is either a liar or a terrible coach."

Look, I'm not saying that he should be the starting linebacker just because he is LaVar Arrington and he makes a billion dollars. If the coaches think Holdman gives us a better chance to win, then he should be starting.

But I've got news for you, Arrington is special. Sean Taylor is special. (You think if Ryan Clark got in to the stuff Taylor did this offseason he would still be here?) They are freaks of nature, and if they are used properly they give us a better chance of winning games.

EDIT: If Arrington is breaking team rules or refusing to play special teams or show up to meetings, that's a different story. But if he is ready to go and not being a problem, waiting two weeks before you start using him is ridiculous.

I guess Gregg is a horrible coach because from Ive seen he's treated all his players the same. Rogers is treated just like Sean was last year. Clark and Bowen haven't been show any favoritism.

You said if the coaches think Holdman is the better man then start him, there you have it. Holdman must be the better man for the moment.

Lavar IS included in packages but they aren't being called. Thats nobody's fault but the seahawks. Complain about them.

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:45 pm

Scottskins wrote:Lol, who cares what Bobby Knight said? He's a psycho and this aint college basketball. One or two great players is all you need in college basketball. That won't get it done in the NFL and in the NFL, every single player on the field has an ego and is a man. College basketball is mostly won by having more skill players than the other team, and the boys that play it are just that...boys who do what they are told without regard to their own egos. Unless of course they are those few special players...

Give me a break. I apologize for not having any Parcells quotes handy, but I promise you he'd say the same thing.

You Parcells would have put up with Lawrence Taylor if he was a backup linebacker? Absolutley not. But since Lawrence Taylor was so great, he dealt with it. It's a fine line that coaches have to walk.

Scottskins · Post by **Scottskins** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:48 pm

Steve Spurrier III wrote:
Scottskins wrote:Lol, who cares what Bobby Knight said? He's a psycho and this aint college basketball. One or two great players is all you need in college basketball. That won't get it done in the NFL and in the NFL, every single player on the field has an ego and is a man. College basketball is mostly won by having more skill players than the other team, and the boys that play it are just that...boys who do what they are told without regard to their own egos. Unless of course they are those few special players...

Give me a break. I apologize for not having any Parcells quotes handy, but I promise you he'd say the same thing.

You Parcells would have put up with Lawrence Taylor if he was a backup linebacker? Absolutley not. But since Lawrence Taylor was so great, he dealt with it. It's a fine line that coaches have to walk.

Problems OFF the field are 100% different then problems ON the field. Gibbs put up with Riggins off the field problems, but you can bet your last buck that Riggins did what coach told him to once he was on the field.

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:51 pm

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I guess Gregg is a horrible coach because from Ive seen he's treated all his players the same. Rogers is treated just like Sean was last year. Clark and Bowen haven't been show any favoritism.

You said if the coaches think Holdman is the better man then start him, there you have it. Holdman must be the better man for the moment.

Lavar IS included in packages but they aren't being called. Thats nobody's fault but the seahawks. Complain about them.

You can believe that it is that simple if you want. But in my opinion, thinking that the only reason Arrington didn't see the field more is because of the personel the Seahawks used is a bit naive. There has to be more to it than this.

And for the record, I'm not saying Gregg Williams is a horrible coach. And neither is Bobby Knight. We both think he is fantastic.

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:53 pm

Scottskins wrote:Problems OFF the field are 100% different then problems ON the field. Gibbs put up with Riggins off the field problems, but you can bet your last buck that Riggins did what coach told him to once he was on the field.

Unless I'm wrong, after his first season under Gibbs, Riggins said that he was tired of being a blocking fullback and wanted to be the primary runner. Gibbs switched to the single-back system and the rest is history.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:55 pm

Steve Spurrier III wrote:
Chris Luva Luva wrote:I guess Gregg is a horrible coach because from Ive seen he's treated all his players the same. Rogers is treated just like Sean was last year. Clark and Bowen haven't been show any favoritism.

You said if the coaches think Holdman is the better man then start him, there you have it. Holdman must be the better man for the moment.

Lavar IS included in packages but they aren't being called. Thats nobody's fault but the seahawks. Complain about them.

You can believe that it is that simple if you want. But in my opinion, thinking that the only reason Arrington didn't see the field more is because of the personel the Seahawks used is a bit naive. There has to be more than this.

And for the record, I'm not saying Gregg Williams is a horrible coach. And neither is Bobby Knight. We both think he is fantastic.

Im not willing to and Im not saying you are, bash this coaching staff because Lavar isn't playing. We dont know all the details and to pin it on anyone thing and especially something negative is a bit premature.

Scottskins · Post by **Scottskins** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:58 pm

Steve Spurrier III wrote:
Scottskins wrote:Problems OFF the field are 100% different then problems ON the field. Gibbs put up with Riggins off the field problems, but you can bet your last buck that Riggins did what coach told him to once he was on the field.

Unless I'm wrong, after his first season under Gibbs, Riggins said that he was tired of being a blocking fullback and wanted to be the primary runner. Gibbs switched to the single-back system and the rest is history.

So Gibbs went to Riggins home to talk him out of retirement to be a blocking fullback?!

blocking fullbacks musta been pretty valueable back then. to be honest, I have no idea. I was like 12 at the time...

regardless, the point was about off and on the field problems being two different monsters ;-)

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:05 am

Scottskins wrote:So Gibbs went to Riggins home to talk him out of retirement to be a blocking fullback?!

blocking fullbacks musta been pretty valueable back then. to be honest, I have no idea. I was like 12 at the time...

regardless, the point was about off and on the field problems being two different monsters

They are different monsters, I grant you that.

Actually, Riggins had sat out the 1980 season. When Gibbs got the job he went and got Riggins to come back. That first season, Riggins was used at least partially as a blocking back (714 yards).

Riggins complained, and Gibbs made the switch. He had 553 yards in eight games in 1982, and then 1200+ yards the next two seasons.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... ggJo00.htm

EDIT: One thing that suprised me about Riggins' stats is that he never averaged over 4 yards a carry under Gibbs. Go figure.