Page 2 of 2
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:49 am
by gibbs4president
If the Redskins' decision to let lavar arrington go was so bad, exactly how terrible was the deal the Giants gave him? That sure worked out well for them.
I wish him the best, but I don't know what happened to him. He's injury prone now and, from a football standpoint, it was a good move for the Redskins... I don't know how you could say it was a big mistake...
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:08 am
by HEROHAMO
PulpExposure wrote:HEROHAMO wrote:What did Lavar do that was so bad?
So he didnt stay with his assignment
You answered your own question. LaVar never improved as a football player from when he got to Washington. He arrived as an explosive athlete with tremendous athleticism and very poor football IQ.
He left with a busted knee that robbed him of much of his explosiveness, and still had a poor football IQ.
While some of that can be attributed to the Redskins defensive coordinators switching every 2 months or so...a lot more has to do with LaVar not being interested in working hard to improve. I mean Antonio Pierce dealt with the same revolving defco door, and worked hard to improve himself (and continues to do so, from undrafted free agent to Pro bowler).
That was money he deserved. It was in the contract.
Actually, it wasn't. That's the whole point. And his idiot agents and LaVar initialled all of the pages of the contract, which means it was a finalized contract.
They
argued it
should have been in the contract. But in law, you can try to make almost any argument you want, the only thing is you want to make a good argument. Once the fully integrated contract was shown, they lost their argument.
He had good seasons with the Skins. He went to 3 pro Bowls. You speak as if all his seasons were horrible. When healthy he led the team in tackles.
Look its obvious u dont like Lavar. So I am not going to try to convince u other wise. U wont change my mind about the whole situation.
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:38 am
by fireman
I don't want anything to do with F R he is the guy who drafted pac-man jones in the first round and he is up in vegas beating up strippers and getting his crew to shoot bouncers we dont need draft picks like that even if they do play great on the field.
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:38 am
by PulpExposure
HEROHAMO wrote:[He had good seasons with the Skins. He went to 3 pro Bowls. You speak as if all his seasons were horrible. When healthy he led the team in tackles.
No, I speak as if he's not any good now. Which he isn't.
You might need to go back and take a reading comprehension class if that's what you got out of my post. Here, I'll help you.
You answered your own question. LaVar never improved as a football player from when he got to Washington. He arrived as an explosive athlete with tremendous athleticism and very poor football IQ.
He left with a busted knee that robbed him of much of his explosiveness, and still had a poor football IQ.
He was a pro bowl LB imho because he made several just vicious hits a game that were extremely entertaining (and made ESPN highlights routinely). He also missed assignments routinely. I always hoped LaVar would learn to play the system better...meaning he'd meld solid LB play with his amazing athletic ability. He never did try to learn to play a system and instead relied on his instincts all the time.
And if I really didn't like the guy, I would have placed
all the blame for his non-improvement on his shoulders, and wouldn't have said:
While some of that can be attributed to the Redskins defensive coordinators switching every 2 months or so
Or you can be blind to his overall play and think he's Superman. Be my guest, but it just makes you out to be a caricature of an obsessed fan.
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:11 pm
by spenser
Mursilis wrote:spenser wrote:Mursilis wrote:spenser wrote:I like the idea and the article.. however im not to sure about this quote
"Dan Snyder plucked his best coach off the dial when hiring Marty Schottenheimer in 2001"
I think Joe Gibbs may have somthing to say about that...
Hopefully he will in the future, but he hasn't so far. Marty hit .500 in the one season he worked for Snyder. Gibbs is 22-28 (.440) since the comeback.
I dont care how you compare it, wheather its All time wins or winning percentage, or if its marties vs Joes 2nd tenure in D.C. or whatever metric your using... there is NO way that you will convince me or the majority of this board that
marty is a better coach than 3 time superbowl champion Joe Gibbs... sorry
Why would I try to convince you of that, when I never said it in the first place?
HUH? I said that the problem with the article was that it indicated Marty was the best coach Snyder had hired. You replied "Hopefully he ( Gibbs ) will in the future, but he hasn't so far". Im not an english major, but to me that is saying that you agree with the article, and that to this point Gibbs Is not as good a coach as marty was. I'm really not interested in getting into a pissing match, but stand by what you said at least.
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:46 pm
by Mursilis
spenser wrote:Mursilis wrote:spenser wrote:Mursilis wrote:spenser wrote:I like the idea and the article.. however im not to sure about this quote
"Dan Snyder plucked his best coach off the dial when hiring Marty Schottenheimer in 2001"
I think Joe Gibbs may have somthing to say about that...
Hopefully he will in the future, but he hasn't so far. Marty hit .500 in the one season he worked for Snyder. Gibbs is 22-28 (.440) since the comeback.
I dont care how you compare it, wheather its All time wins or winning percentage, or if its marties vs Joes 2nd tenure in D.C. or whatever metric your using... there is NO way that you will convince me or the majority of this board that
marty is a better coach than 3 time superbowl champion Joe Gibbs... sorry
Why would I try to convince you of that, when I never said it in the first place?
HUH? I said that the problem with the article was that it indicated Marty was the best coach Snyder had hired. You replied "Hopefully he ( Gibbs ) will in the future, but he hasn't so far". Im not an english major, but to me that is saying that you agree with the article, and that to this point Gibbs Is not as good a coach as marty was. I'm really not interested in getting into a pissing match, but stand by what you said at least.
It's simple - in his career, Gibbs is better, obviously. 3 Super Bowl wins beats none. Being in the Hall of Fame beats not being in the Hall. Just comparing careers, Gibbs is better, and no rational person is likely to argue otherwise.
That being said, just comparing them as Redskins coaches
under Snyder as the article did, Marty's winning percentage was better - that's just a mathematical fact, already demonstrated above. You may argue it's not fair to 'take out' Gibbs' past success, which is fine, but the fact remains that under Snyder, Marty won a higher percentage of games than Gibbs. Blame Snyder, Vinny, the press, etc., whoever you want, but Gibbs hasn't exactly thrived under Snyder this time around. Hopefully that will change.
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:06 pm
by spenser
Mursilis wrote:spenser wrote:Mursilis wrote:spenser wrote:Mursilis wrote:spenser wrote:I like the idea and the article.. however im not to sure about this quote
"Dan Snyder plucked his best coach off the dial when hiring Marty Schottenheimer in 2001"
I think Joe Gibbs may have somthing to say about that...
Hopefully he will in the future, but he hasn't so far. Marty hit .500 in the one season he worked for Snyder. Gibbs is 22-28 (.440) since the comeback.
I dont care how you compare it, wheather its All time wins or winning percentage, or if its marties vs Joes 2nd tenure in D.C. or whatever metric your using... there is NO way that you will convince me or the majority of this board that
marty is a better coach than 3 time superbowl champion Joe Gibbs... sorry
Why would I try to convince you of that, when I never said it in the first place?
HUH? I said that the problem with the article was that it indicated Marty was the best coach Snyder had hired. You replied "Hopefully he ( Gibbs ) will in the future, but he hasn't so far". Im not an english major, but to me that is saying that you agree with the article, and that to this point Gibbs Is not as good a coach as marty was. I'm really not interested in getting into a pissing match, but stand by what you said at least.
It's simple - in his career, Gibbs is better, obviously. 3 Super Bowl wins beats none. Being in the Hall of Fame beats not being in the Hall. Just comparing careers, Gibbs is better, and no rational person is likely to argue otherwise.
That being said, just comparing them as Redskins coaches
under Snyder as the article did, Marty's winning percentage was better - that's just a mathematical fact, already demonstrated above. You may argue it's not fair to 'take out' Gibbs' past success, which is fine, but the fact remains that under Snyder, Marty won a higher percentage of games than Gibbs. Blame Snyder, Vinny, the press, etc., whoever you want, but Gibbs hasn't exactly thrived under Snyder this time around. Hopefully that will change.
Dude i feel ya! I agree and i think we were just arguing over semantics... Anyhoo... Yea marty did have a better % under the snyder era... But at least gibbs has won a playoff game (thats got to count for somthing right?) Either way i do think marty is a good coach, but obviously my loyalities lie with Gibbs. I really just hope we have a good few seasons to "untarnish" gibb's return.
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:15 pm
by Mursilis
spenser wrote:
Dude i feel ya! I agree and i think we were just arguing over semantics... Anyhoo... Yea marty did have a better % under the snyder era... But at least gibbs has won a playoff game (thats got to count for somthing right?) Either way i do think marty is a good coach, but obviously my loyalities lie with Gibbs. I really just hope we have a good few seasons to "untarnish" gibb's return.
Absolutely. It just kills me that Gibbs has had his worst two seasons since he came back. I want the team to win as a fan, but I admire Gibbs as a person, and I'd like to see him get another ring to validate his return.
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:24 pm
by spenser
Absolutely. It just kills me that Gibbs has had his worst two seasons since he came back. I want the team to win as a fan, but I admire Gibbs as a person, and I'd like to see him get another ring to validate his return.
Word. Gibbs is such a class guy and i kinda feel like he doesnt really get the respect he deserves sometimes. I mean yes hes in the hall of fame and people know hes an all time great, but when people bring up the "best" coaches i allways hear about Parcells, Billicheck, Cower, andy reid etc... And while they are great coaches and taking nothing away from them, Gibbs has won more SB's with less HOF players and does things the right way. Heres to hoping for an awesome 07 season!
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:27 pm
by HEROHAMO
PulpExposure wrote
LaVar never improved as a football player from when he got to Washington. He arrived as an explosive athlete with tremendous athleticism and very poor football IQ.
Let me help u comprehend this. When you make it to a Pro Bowl that means you have been recognized by fans and fellow football players and coaches. As one of the top players in your respective position.
Making the pro bowl 3 times well that was no fluke.
Pulpexposure wrote
LaVar never improved as a football player from when he got to Washington.
Id say being a rookie and then making it to 3 pro Bowls is improvement.
I may be a fan of Lavar and want him back on my team. You may call me an obsessed fan if you want.
But when u are not willing to recognize ones contributions to the organization. Also show no gratitude. Well guess what that makes u an
Ingreat..
[/quote]
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:56 pm
by SkinsJock
"spellcheck" is a wonderful thing - but then your sig covers it all for you
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:27 pm
by 1niksder
HEROHAMO wrote:PulpExposure wrote
LaVar never improved as a football player from when he got to Washington. He arrived as an explosive athlete with tremendous athleticism and very poor football IQ.
Let me help u comprehend this. When you make it to a Pro Bowl that means you have been recognized by fans and fellow football players and coaches. As one of the top players in your respective position.
Making the pro bowl 3 times well that was no fluke.
The Pro Bowl is a popularity contest Going three times means you have a lot of people that like you, or a couple of people sitting at a computer voting for that 1 player for hours on in.
HEROHAMO wrote: Pulpexposure wrote
LaVar never improved as a football player from when he got to Washington.
Id say being a rookie and then making it to 3 pro Bowls is improvement.
I may be a fan of Lavar and want him back on my team. You may call me an obsessed fan if you want.
There you go with that free trip to the big Island, however Tony Romo did prove that botched FG was just a oddity and showed everyone he really earned is selection this year didn't he.
HEROHAMO wrote:But when u are not willing to recognize ones contributions to the organization. Also show no gratitude. Well guess what that makes u an
Ingreat..
You seem to be taking your defense of Mr "Nickle" personal that's
but attack the post not the poster.
Best wishes to Lavar but those wishes include him being somewhere else.
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:39 pm
by PulpExposure
HEROHAMO wrote:Let me help u comprehend this. When you make it to a Pro Bowl that means you have been recognized by fans and fellow football players and coaches. As one of the top players in your respective position.
Making the pro bowl 3 times well that was no fluke.
Mike Alstott, 6 time Pro Bowler....
Pro Bowl means nothing, especially when you factor in how many times a player makes it purely on rep (Larry Allen come on down!), or media pressure (Hi Tony Romo!)
But when u are not willing to recognize ones contributions to the organization. Also show no gratitude. Well guess what that makes u an
Ingreat..
What did he contribute to the Redskins? He made some good plays for us, and made a hell of a lot of money while he was at it. Sounds like a fair trade to me. It's not like he left a lasting legacy with the Skins.
The guy was the 2nd pick in the entire draft. That high, you expect someone to make multiple pro bowls. And be well paid. And he did both. But I never considered him one of the greatest linebackers in the NFL. As he really should have been.
By the way, your spelling is atrocious. Free lesson -> ingrate.
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:35 am
by Redskin in Canada
Dan Snyder -wants- an executive that
1) plays with him,
2) says YES!!!
3) asks How high??!!
4) someone who gives good massages to his ego
5) etc, etc
Dan Snyder -needs- an executive that
1) does not play with him;
2 ) says NO!!!
3) moves him out of anything relating to choice of personnel
4) someone who only cares about a Lombardi Trophy with Joe
5) etc, etc
Get the picture?
It ain't gonna happen, ever, for as long as that egomaniac cares more about making more revenue than winning with pride on the field.
What a sad day when this rich clown got the team as a new toy. If it was not for Joe Gibbs now, I would stop watching the Redskins for good. I despise Vinny and Dan.
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:55 am
by HEROHAMO
PulpExposure wrote:HEROHAMO wrote:Let me help u comprehend this. When you make it to a Pro Bowl that means you have been recognized by fans and fellow football players and coaches. As one of the top players in your respective position.
Making the pro bowl 3 times well that was no fluke.
Mike Alstott, 6 time Pro Bowler....
Pro Bowl means nothing, especially when you factor in how many times a player makes it purely on rep (Larry Allen come on down!), or media pressure (Hi Tony Romo!)
But when u are not willing to recognize ones contributions to the organization. Also show no gratitude. Well guess what that makes u an
Ingreat..
What did he contribute to the Redskins? He made some good plays for us, and made a hell of a lot of money while he was at it. Sounds like a fair trade to me. It's not like he left a lasting legacy with the Skins.
The guy was the 2nd pick in the entire draft. That high, you expect someone to make multiple pro bowls. And be well paid. And he did both. But I never considered him one of the greatest linebackers in the NFL. As he really should have been.
By the way, your spelling is atrocious. Free lesson -> ingrate.
Its Ok you got the point. I never claimed to be a spelling Bee winner. I got my point across and u understood my message. That is the purpose of a language to get a message across.
Anyhow its obvious u think the Skins made the right descision in letting him go. I on the other hand would like to see the Skins give him another chance.
Whatever you say you wont change my mind. For I firmly believe Lavar is a good guy and firmly believe he will be healthy next season. On that note I would not mind him being in Washington.
Ok now you have your opinion I have to respect that. But your attempts to convince me otherwise is all in vain. I know you want the best for the Skins and so do I. So I apologize if I call u names.
Once again I am firmly a Lavar supporter and am immovable in that regard. Hail to the Skins let the pieces all come together. Its what I live for the Drama the hype of the off season. The uncertainty of what is to unfold in the Season. Hail to the Skins Hoorah...
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:42 pm
by John Manfreda
AS long as Snyder is the GM, which he is (no Gibbs isn't) he will suck it doesn't matter who our coach is.