The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Just saw the ESPN report on it. It seems there were several players who were pissed about the timing of all of this. I wouldn't worry though, it seems like everyone is focused on the task at hand

I was turned on to this guy about three weeks ago. Read what he says about this mess.
http://coveringtheredskins.blogspot.com/

LB LaVar Arrington did not comment on the article written in the Washington Times yesterday where he suggested he may retire if the Skins don't retain him which he believes will be the case.. he did say he might be interested in playing for a few teams if the opportunity arose..

This is from the Blog TC posted. Liar, meet LaVar. LaVar, meet liar.

ChrisHanburger wrote:It sounds like Lindsey's a William's protege who busts balls and motivates through intimidation which Lavar doesn't like. Maybe Lindsey went overboard in that encounter, but anyone who's coached before knows that things can build up and individual encounters can seem out of control when taken out of context.

I hope that's the case.

Jake wrote:

LB LaVar Arrington did not comment on the article written in the Washington Times yesterday where he suggested he may retire if the Skins don't retain him which he believes will be the case.. he did say he might be interested in playing for a few teams if the opportunity arose..

This is from the Blog TC posted. Liar, meet LaVar. LaVar, meet liar.

I keep reading where he is quoted as saying this, and something about playing for Marty but I don't know where it is coming from. Effin's article said LA said he would rather retire than play elsewhere. Anyone have a link to Lavar saying he wants to play elsewhere?

tcwest10 wrote:

hailskins666 wrote:So basically this article says that gibbs is running this team not snyder...... whats the problem ?

The problem, big guy, is the timing. We've got a 4 game win streak on. The superstitious say, " Never mess with a win streak."
Lavar is seriously messing with it. It could conceivably affect the chemistry.
What ? It could happen ! We're the Redskins, remember ?

still no problem. i'll be shocked if lavar starts on sunday. he may not even see the field. just shows that the inmates are no longer running the asylum. (or snyder for that matter) and thats a good thing.

hailskins666 wrote:..still no problem. i'll be shocked if lavar starts on sunday. he may not even see the field. just shows that the inmates are no longer running the asylum. (or snyder for that matter) and thats a good thing.

I also think that this "issue" is still kind of feeding and growing on it's own and mostly because of all that this game means.

The only thing I would add hailskins, is that I am very sure that the Redskins players and coaches are going to do everything they can to win this game. I think that there may be some issues to address after the season but for now they have these players and everyone will do whatever they can to win. That might include LaVar or not but that decision will not be made to "make a point".
Anyway that's my take - I think this is a problem but all the parties involved will "manage" it for now and then we'll see where we are, later!

tcwest10 wrote:I was turned on to this guy about three weeks ago. Read what he says about this mess.
http://coveringtheredskins.blogspot.com/

site, TC, but what bugs me is this. If he's a reporter, covering the Redskins, why is he constantly spelling Brunell's name as Brunnell?

I mean it's not like he's some bum 3rd string special teams player.

Even Spurrier would have gotten the last name right...

PulpExposure wrote:

tcwest10 wrote:I was turned on to this guy about three weeks ago. Read what he says about this mess.
http://coveringtheredskins.blogspot.com/

site, TC, but what bugs me is this. If he's a reporter, covering the Redskins, why is he constantly spelling Brunell's name as Brunnell?

I mean it's not like he's some bum 3rd string special teams player.

Even Spurrier would have gotten the last name right...

He is not a "print" reporter. That link is a Blog not a news site

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:..Oh well, we've won without him, and we should win again on Sunday. I just don't appreciate the distraction.

Excuse me! What's with the "oh well!" - are you kidding me? "oh well"! I cannot believe this! This is the most important game this year - we don't need no stinking - "oh well"!

First off - The "distraction" is not a part of this team. It is an attempt of "some" outside the team!
We are not playing this game "without" LaVar! He is, as of today, a member of the Redskins. He is, as of today, an integral member of this team! With Joe Gibbs, this is an "equal opportunity" deal and LaVar is just as important a member of this team for this game. I think that you think that Brunell is important to this game - to Gibbs, everyone who plays for his team is an integral part of the whole team!

We will win this game together, with LaVar and Brunell.

Some of us need to get a little pissed off about everything - this is not a "oh well" tea party! - this is a fight - we have to win this game!

The only team that will be able to afford him next July, when we cut him, is the Eagles, and that scares me.

I haven't really chimed in on this because I don't care that much and it isn't a big deal, but I was just watching SportsCenter and then when I was in the shower it struck me why this whole thing is so absurd...

The bottom line is, the media is meant to BREAK the news, not MAKE the news. This is the reason that the public opinion of the news media is at an alltime low in this country. People don't want reporters creating stories and pushing their own agendas when their real job is to be an impartial observer. This guy just went to far trying to make a big splash and a name for himself and this is happening all too often these days.

Therefore, this isn't even a newsworthy story, maybe if LaVar had been arguing about this with the Redskins in practice this week and Elfman heard about this it would be but that isn't the case. I'm sure Elfman wanted it to be though, this story would be much bigger if he was able to distract the team and put Redskins Park into chaos and I'm sure that that was part of his perverted motivation in running this piece, particulalry this week. The guy is just scum trying to make a name for himself, don't pay him any attention.

hkHog wrote:... but I was just watching SportsCenter and then when I was in the shower it struck me why this whole thing is so absurd...

Great coincidence! I was seated in the toilet thinking about what was going to come out next when I thought

This WHOLE story will be ancient history after the first play of the game on Sunday.

This is my last post on this thread. It is HISTORY.

One Post I'd like to address....

Paralis wrote: The obvious problem with this discussion is whether or not we can take media numbers for granted. When NFL.com cites Carl Poston when listing length, total value, signing and total bonus figures for a contract extension, it seems like it's worth taking into consideration--primarily because it's in the Postons' best interests not to understate the value of the contract (and, by extension, their services).

Arrington agrees to eight-year deal (NFL.com)

But even if that's not the case--even if the Postons allowed themselves to be used as sources to report incorrect contract figures (contract figures which you seem to suggest are uniformly below what Arrington signed for), the numbers you're working with are still wonky.

The problem is you are working with the signing bonus from the extension because that was what the media reported; what Carl Poston told them we may never know. According to him the contract wasn’t the contract, hence the dispute so how much CAN you put into what Poston says.

Paralis wrote: Surely we can agree that the date of the contract extension isn't in question. 12/03 was too late to fit new money under the 03 cap, so for allocation purposes, the bonus is split over 6 years--2004-2009. Two of these years have already been accounted for, so what remains is two-thirds of $26M, or about $17.5. Higher than the number I'm working with, sure, but still a far cry from the $30M we need to account for.

And that's the ceiling--assuming there's some odd structure I'm unfamiliar with, whereby the signing bonus from Arrington's rookie contract was prorated only over the years of his rookie deal (expiring at the end of 06, I believe?), then the $17.5M could be lower still.

Not only was there $6.15M left in prorated 2000 bonus money but $5.5M of Lavar’s 2003 salary was converted to bonus money for cap purposes. So what you start with is a little more than $38M prorated over 6 years with 3 years off the books that’s leaves almost $20.05M if you account for the cap credit that kicked in last year and credit it thru 2009 now, if not add $.4M to the $20M

In 2006 Lavar cap number will include $545K in salary, $5.1M from prorated bonuses and $6.4M in other bonuses (not including the $6.5M you keep hearing about but other guaranteed bonus money that will count)

Paralis wrote:As long as there's no CBA extension, the June 1 deadline is pretty much meaningless in 06. The only date that matters is whenver the roster bonus is scheduled to fall due (I've read 7/15, but can see fewer agendas competing to ensure accuracy).

Obviously you are no capoligist but how can you make this statement then question what anyone else says about the cap.
If there is no agreement by March 31st the NFLPA says they will walk away from the table leaving 07 uncapped. Meaning Large contracts can be dumped and the biggest part of the cap hit wouldn't be felt during the uncapped year. The roster bonus won't matter if he isn't here but knowing what is going to happen with the CBA has everything to do with what happens with the cap in 2006

Paralis wrote:I'm still leery of the numbers you linked to, though. First because warpath uses a different contract length and total value figure than initially reported (see the top of my post), but also because in the player bio for Arrington, they seem to still be using the numbers from his rookie deal--this two years later.

Reread the info in the link it refers to both contracts something BH tried to point out to you from the start but it went over your head I guess. (when a contract is extended you can't just for get about what is due on the cap and the player won't forget about what he had coming before reworking the deal

Paralis wrote:But I'm not sure this is worth arguing about. Your numbers not only didn't jibe with what I'd read previously about Arrington's contract situation, but, if true, would surely have started a media revolt. On the other hand, NFL contract numbers (the details, at any rate) aren't a matter of public record, and so there's nothing I can point to that conclusively says I'm right--just reading the wires and playing with the numbers in my head. Maybe you still feel surer than I do, but hopefully, if so, you can explain it better. It's still way ahead of the game, but having a good handle on the numbers makes the offseason a lot more entertaining.[/url]

Stop letting reporters do your legwork or you'll never know for sure.
USAToday has a link that will allow you to search for a players salary by name or team. that combined with the info available at NFLPA.com and Playersinc would have told you whos numbers were flawed and who has been looking into details should as these for as long as BH has

1niksder wrote:He is not a "print" reporter. That link is a Blog not a news site

I know man, but still. If you're going to put something down (either in print or electronic format), it's really not too hard to try to spell the starting quarterback's name right...just irks me, is all.

PulpExposure wrote:

1niksder wrote:He is not a "print" reporter. That link is a Blog not a news site

I know man, but still. If you're going to put something down (either in print or electronic format), it's really not too hard to try to spell the starting quarterback's name right...just irks me, is all.

There are people starting Blogs that have trouble spelling their own names. But I feel ya

I am kind of getting sick of all the LaVar chit-chat. Besides the one time I heard it briefly mentioned was ESPN( I did not hear CSN comment on it at all), this story does not seem to be a big deal and is most likely someone trying to stir the pot. Lets just let it die like most of the players have and focus on winning at Philthy.

Speaking of CSN I saw on Sportsnite something that made me feel even more confident that we will win Sunday. During a segment where ST was being interviewed one reporter asked (this not an exact quote) was he proud of the progress the team has made. In essence he said that he was not proud because this team is playing the way it is suppose to be playing. When I heard this is was stunned yet very pleased with the way he responded. I shows that ST was matured greatly under the tutaledge of Gibbs and Williams and shows that is team is not concerned about what happened in the past. The future of this team is now and with a win on Sunday this team can make madd noise in the playoffs and take the first steps of restoring this storied franchise to its rightful place. NFL dominance.

hailskins666 wrote:

tcwest10 wrote:

hailskins666 wrote:So basically this article says that gibbs is running this team not snyder...... whats the problem ?

The problem, big guy, is the timing. We've got a 4 game win streak on. The superstitious say, " Never mess with a win streak."
Lavar is seriously messing with it. It could conceivably affect the chemistry.
What ? It could happen ! We're the Redskins, remember ?

still no problem. i'll be shocked if lavar starts on sunday. he may not even see the field. just shows that the inmates are no longer running the asylum. (or snyder for that matter) and thats a good thing.

I appreciate your optimism, but with Clemons down and out...we have no depth.

tcwest10 wrote: I appreciate your optimism, but with Clemons down and out...we have no depth.

Huh? The guy who was getting the nod BEFORE Lavar originally this year isn't a suitable back up?

Most teams would love to be able to put in a LB the calibre of Warrick Holdman if their 'starter' goes down. I'm not saying he's equal in talent, but he certainly qualifies as decent depth.

Khari Campbell can also be utilized in certain packages.

Personally I find it pretty surprising that a REDSKIN fan wouldn't give Gregg Williams the benefit of the doubt when he has proven time and time again, that he can rotate anyone through this defense and not miss too many beats.

Three guys who were starters last year on defense actually FINISHED the season... THREE.... all the other starters were hurt. Does any NFL team have the depth to account for that? No. Did we still finish with one of the best defenses in the league? Yes.

Why?

Good coaching.

... look for the same on Sunday.

This actually degraded into me sounding like I don't support Williams.
I do, and you know it.
You can try to defend a particular detail of a much larger picture and wind up kicking yourself in the butt.
That's what happened to me here.
If they sit Lavar, and there's no Clemons...I still think we have lost depth on the rotation.
That's all.

tcwest10 wrote:This actually degraded into me sounding like I don't support Williams.
I do, and you know it.
You can try to defend a particular detail of a much larger picture and wind up kicking yourself in the butt.
That's what happened to me here.
If they sit Lavar, and there's no Clemons...I still think we have lost depth on the rotation.
That's all.

Clemons being out WILL decrease depth but to say we have not depth is just incorrect.
BH pointed out what happen last year with the starters and what the depth was like. If you don't recall what he is talking about go back and look at the last game of the season. We played the playoff bound Vikings w/"the Randy ratio" and were missing so many defensive players that at times we had LBs playing DB - DBs plays playing LB -Lineman dropping in coverage on non blizting downs- DEs playing LB. I even remember why we had a 2 man front on a 3rd and long. Then I remembered it's GW and his packages. He just plugs someone in and the normal position doesn't seem to matter, if you play defense and a body is needed your number may be called

If LaVar goes....I will cry, but it looks like he is out lets just hope he goes to the farthest corner of the NFL so we dont have to deal with him. SD would be nice but I pray every night he is in Burgundy and Gold next year, But since it doesnt look that way lets get him a SUPER BOW, after all he has never even been to the playoffs

tcwest10 wrote:I appreciate your optimism, but with Clemons down and out...we have no depth.

Maybe it's a blessing in disguise. I don't think they're going to bench LaVar and maybe now he'll be in the game rushing the passer on third down. We haven't seen that all year but we know from the past that he does that very well.

Cooley47 wrote:If LaVar goes....I will cry, but it looks like he is out lets just hope he goes to the farthest corner of the NFL so we dont have to deal with him. SD would be nice but I pray every night he is in Burgundy and Gold next year, But since it doesnt look that way lets get him a SUPER BOW, after all he has never even been to the playoffs

I think its pretty much a sure thing that La Var is gone after this season. And forget placing blame on La Var or management. It's clear that both have screwed the pooch in destroying this relationship. If La Var really wanted to finish his career here, he would have done some things differently. Likewise, if the Redskins organization really wanted to salvage their relationship with him, they too would have done some things differently. Bottom line, the relationship is over after this season.

La Var has given us some great memories here. Don't give me the BS about how he didn't get us into the playoffs - that might be true in basketball but in football, rarely can one guy make this happen. In any event, I wish both La Var and the Redskins continued fortune (meaning we make the playoffs this year ) after the breakup.

tcwest10 wrote:This actually degraded into me sounding like I don't support Williams.
I do, and you know it.
You can try to defend a particular detail of a much larger picture and wind up kicking yourself in the butt.
That's what happened to me here.
If they sit Lavar, and there's no Clemons...I still think we have lost depth on the rotation.
That's all.

Sorry... I really wasn't trying to be overly critcal. I think you're being a bit sensitive though.

All I was saying (and said) was that in my opinion, we have good depth because we have Warrick Holdman.

My second point was just that because of GW's ability to call his defense around the personnel that he has available to him, that depth rarely seems to be a serious issue.

And I know that you know that... hence my surprise that you would consider depth now an issue when our SITUATIONAL THIRD DOWN PASS RUSHING LB is unavailable and all of this is IF the Redskins decide to not play Lavar at all.

If we don't see Lavar, we'll see Prioleau more, we'll see Holdman, we may see Campbell... we may even see Campbell in at MIC with Marshall pushed over to the weak side on some plays... maybe Mc Cune will get some reps... we'll see a lot of things but what we won't see in my opinion, is a defense struggling to account for the loss of Chris Clemons.