Lavar Arrinton.... Merged

HEROHAMO · Post by **HEROHAMO** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 3:18 am

I just wanted to say Lavar has been a true redskin.Hes been with us since his rookie year.He has stuck it out through all these past down years and this is how he gets repaid.I just dont understand.How can a Pro bowl caliber player like him not start.There is no way he cant be utilized.He fits into any scheme. Can anyone explain to me why this is happening? I cant imagine him in another uniform.Should I be coming to grips with him leaving?If he leaves it will truely be a sad day in Skins ville.

UK Skins Fan · Post by **UK Skins Fan** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:54 am

I haven't posted for a while (I know - nobody missed me), but the title of this thread had me snorting into my morning coffee. Lavar versus LT? Ha ha. :roll:

Then again, the thread actually isn't about seriously trying to compare the merits of the two players, so maybe it's not as daft as it looked. :wink:

If LT was a Redskin, I can't help feeling he'd be sitting exactly where Lavar is right now. His weaknesses were similar to Lavar's, and would probably have got him in the coaches' doghouse as well. Of course, LT was also a player who completely changed the way that offenses had to play, whereas Lavar is a guy who can look pretty for a few plays.

As for Bill Parcells, you can be sure that he is looking at Lavar's situation at the moment, and licking his chops at the idea of getting him into his defense.

UK Skins Fan · Post by **UK Skins Fan** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:06 am

I'm not really sure how many threads we need to discuss Lavar, but I'll fall into the trap.

Perhaps Lavar ceased to be a true Redskin when he ripped the organisation to the press, and questioned the honesty and integrity of Joe Gibbs and the defensive coaches.

Lavar just doesn't seem to have grasped the fact that this coaching staff (and the whole organisation) now want something different from him than he has given before. He definitely does not fit into just any scheme - not playing the way that he has in the past.

Maybe the coaches are trying to send a message, but I sure as hell don't believe that Joe Gibbs would let Williams leave a player on the bench who increases the team's chance of winning, just to play mindgames. The Redskins defense is better without Lavar right now, and that's the coaches' judgement, not mine.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 7:32 am

"Lavar has been a True Redskin." has been merged.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 7:47 am

Chris Luva Luva wrote:"Lavar has been a True Redskin." has been merged.

along with LT vs Lavar

HitDoctor · Post by **HitDoctor** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 4:07 pm

time to either move him or get him on the field.

air_hog · Post by **air_hog** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 4:29 pm

I thought we really needed him out there today.

He is one of the few guys in the league that has that spark and energy to change a game all by himself.

I'm getting a little nervous/angry now. I mean he doesn't have to start, but come on, give him like 5-7 plays when Holdman or Marshall or someone is tired.

redskincity · Post by **redskincity** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 4:36 pm

air_hog wrote:I thought we really needed him out there today.

He is one of the few guys in the league that has that spark and energy to change a game all by himself.

I'm getting a little nervous/angry now. I mean he doesn't have to start, but come on, give him like 5-7 plays when Holdman or Marshall or someone is tired.

I was surprised not to see him out there except for one special teams play.

We could have used the boost, but everyone will blame the blown plays on his sideline presence.

skinsfano28 · Post by **skinsfano28** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 4:40 pm

i bet you he would have forced trent green to fumble on that scramble when holdman made that tackle...just sayin.

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 4:41 pm

Holdman Sucks@! He blew it on a few plays...the Holmes screen for one...he is not very good.

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 4:43 pm

Ok I was in the camp of not playing lavar due to gregg williams knowing who is best to play in his defense... but ...

START

LAVAR

NOW !!!

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 4:44 pm

The Hogster wrote:Holdman Sucks@! He blew it on a few plays...the Holmes screen for one...he is not very good.

Two weeks in a row I'm watching that screen to the RB develop and thinking, "We got this", only to be wrong four times.
While I understand that these plays are hard to pick up on, they seem to have a way of making our nearly great defense look foolish.
I'm not sure LaVar is there answer here, but I'd be willing to put him in there.

SkinsLaVar · Post by **SkinsLaVar** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 4:50 pm

Yo u spelled Arrington's name wrong

HitDoctor · Post by **HitDoctor** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 4:54 pm

if the skins won one of the last two, we wouldn't be focusing on lavar.

gilbertarenas · Post by **gilbertarenas** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 4:59 pm

Two of the runs that were 60 yard plays (Tatum and Priest) were on the right side of the ball, that's where Lavar used to play when I last checked. Phillip Daniels also is not showing me that much at the defensive end spot.

skinsfano28 · Post by **skinsfano28** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:00 pm

phillip daniels is an older courtney brown. lots of hype, lots of credentials, always hurt, never productive.

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:04 pm

skinsfano28 wrote:phillip daniels is an older courtney brown. lots of hype, lots of credentials, always hurt, never productive.

How soon we forget. Daniels doesn't take plays off, nor does he follow a good one with four bad ones. There must be some way to make an argument for Arrington without saying Daniels is crap.

roybus14 · Post by **roybus14** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:05 pm

I just watched GW interviewed on Comcast by Kelli Johnson. This thing is not about Lavar knowing the scheme, etc...

Kelli asked GW how about putting Lavar in at DE and his response was take out who, Daniels or the other DE? Correct me if I am wrong but there were numerous 3rd and longs and I see Clemons down on fours "play" rushing the passer with that silly out of place stunt.

He was clearly agitated by the question and Kelli should have followed that up with, "well Coach, Clemons saw alot of time rushing the passer on 3rd and longs today so why didn't Lavar?"

It is obvious that he is not going to play so they should just deactivate him and move on. He passed the buck down to Gregg Bloche and the other coaches as to why Lavar is not playing.

It's bull and they need to stop playing this game.

Other than that, wasn't that 70 yard catch and run by Moss just beautiful. But once again, turnovers killed us. The Chiefs had what 14 points off turnovers???

redskincity · Post by **redskincity** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:06 pm

HitDoctor wrote:if the skins won one of the last two, we wouldn't be focusing on lavar.

and since we didnt guess what.

Skinsfan55 · Post by **Skinsfan55** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:10 pm

redskincity wrote:
HitDoctor wrote:if the skins won one of the last two, we wouldn't be focusing on lavar.

and since we didnt guess what.

Well put my man.

Arrington is the best defensive player we have, and he's warming the bench. It's idiotic.

No one else in the football world is giving Williams a pass on such a ridiculous move, and neither should we. It's nonsense.

"LaVar is having trouble picking up the schemes!"

Yeah, and the rest of the defense is having a grand old time picking them up, that's why they blow so hard.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:10 pm

roybus14 wrote:I just watched GW interviewed on Comcast by Kelli Johnson. This thing is not about Lavar knowing the scheme, etc...

Kelli asked GW how about putting Lavar in at DE and his response was take out who, Daniels or the other DE? Correct me if I am wrong but there were numerous 3rd and longs and I see Clemons down on fours "play" rushing the passer with that silly out of place stunt.

He was clearly agitated by the question and Kelli should have followed that up with, "well Coach, Clemons saw alot of time rushing the passer on 3rd and longs today so why didn't Lavar?".

It is obvious that he is not going to play so they should just deactivate him and move on. He passed the buck down to Gregg Bloche and the other coaches as to why Lavar is not playing.

It's bull and they need to stop playing this game.

Other than that, wasn't that 70 yard catch and run by Moss just beautiful. But once again, turnovers killed us. The Chiefs had what 14 points off turnovers???

It's obvious that Lavar is behind Clemons on the depth chart at DE.
Where they are as far as the LB posittion goes, I don't know.

Would it have help the situation any if GW had said well Clemons is ahead of arrington on the depth chart?

Hoss · Post by **Hoss** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:12 pm

roybus14 wrote:Other than that, wasn't that 70 yard catch and run by Moss just beautiful. But once again, turnovers killed us. The Chiefs had what 14 points off turnovers???

That was a schweet play!

I think they scored 10 pts. off of t/o's

roybus14 · Post by **roybus14** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:21 pm

1niksder wrote:
roybus14 wrote:I just watched GW interviewed on Comcast by Kelli Johnson. This thing is not about Lavar knowing the scheme, etc...

Kelli asked GW how about putting Lavar in at DE and his response was take out who, Daniels or the other DE? Correct me if I am wrong but there were numerous 3rd and longs and I see Clemons down on fours "play" rushing the passer with that silly out of place stunt.

He was clearly agitated by the question and Kelli should have followed that up with, "well Coach, Clemons saw alot of time rushing the passer on 3rd and longs today so why didn't Lavar?".

It is obvious that he is not going to play so they should just deactivate him and move on. He passed the buck down to Gregg Bloche and the other coaches as to why Lavar is not playing.

It's bull and they need to stop playing this game.

Other than that, wasn't that 70 yard catch and run by Moss just beautiful. But once again, turnovers killed us. The Chiefs had what 14 points off turnovers???

It's obvious that Lavar is behind Clemons on the depth chart at DE.
Where they are as far as the LB posittion goes, I don't know.

Would it have help the situation any if GW had said well Clemons is ahead of arrington on the depth chart?

No. But just like B-Mitch said on Comcast, a smart defensive coach would find a way to somehow using Lavar's aggressiveness to the defense's advantage. Marvin Lewis did it.

But this situation is a done deal because Lavar isn't even given a chance to be "out of position" as so many claim he always is. Instead of doing this song and dance, just deactivate him and move on. This issue is dominating the talk here, on SportsTalk radio here, and after every game and it's got to be getting old for the coaches.

Deactivate him and move on so that we can end this long-azz thread.....

roybus14 · Post by **roybus14** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:22 pm

Skinsfan55 wrote:
redskincity wrote:
HitDoctor wrote:if the skins won one of the last two, we wouldn't be focusing on lavar.

and since we didnt guess what.

Well put my man.

Arrington is the best defensive player we have, and he's warming the bench. It's idiotic.

No one else in the football world is giving Williams a pass on such a ridiculous move, and neither should we. It's nonsense.

"LaVar is having trouble picking up the schemes!"

Yeah, and the rest of the defense is having a grand old time picking them up, that's why they blow so hard.[/quote]

Good point!!!!

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:24 pm

I think that when we do finally have him in the game, he's going to make us look smart for keeping him fresh until crunch time.
Wait and see.