Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic]Do you ever question anyone? You didn't question some of the moves made with playcalling last year? When players from other teams knew what was coming. that comes from interviews with quotes(and no I am not going to be able to find them) from teams we faced. Is every Redskin fan suppose to sit there and not have an opinion about anything? You never question anything? I find that hard to believe. Boy, you question something out here and watch out you get jumped on from all angles. From now on what ever you say is right , and I will just agree with everything said. maybe that will make you people happy. Or maybe you are just the kind of people that look for something to argue about.[/QUOTE]

I think the problem a lot of people have is not so much questioning the coaches' decisions. Everyone does that all the time, and that doesn't mean we don't recognize the coaches are smarter in this regard.

It's when people take it to another level and start questioning the integrity and honesty of the coaches and calling them liars and accusing them of having personal vendettas that people get upset. And rightfully so.

As for LaVar himself, this isn't the first time he's complained openly in public and then later admitted he may have jumped the gun. Remember how he complained endlessly about how Marvin Lewis used him. And then last offseason he said that looking back he realized what Lewis was doing and he was right to use him that way. LaVar is an emotional type who basically just speaks his mind without filtering his thoughts really, but maybe that's something he should learn to do.

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic]you people dont know me from me Joe, so to say I am not a true fan of the Redskins is totally wrong. I have been a die hard fan since I was born. Because I have a feeling that one player is better than the other and should be playing doesn't discount my loyalty as well as anyone elses. didn't everyone think benching Brunell was in the best interest of the team? That Ramsey was the better QB. Isn't that the same situation here. Just because I have 56 in logname doesn't make me a LaVar fan, and not a Redskins fan. I have been a fan before LaVar got here and will be a fan when he leaves. All this crap is getting old, you have one side saying I told you so and the other going off about the comments made by LaVar the last couple of days. I have no theories about this team or why he wasnt playing. I was only stating what I heard from programs on TV or columnists in the paper. I have no idea what goes on in the organization as much as you do. I dont know why you and the other people who continuously bash what I say. I thought this was an opinion site. So if Green Bay decided to sit Brett and play Aaron Rogers, you dont think some green bay fans would question the coaches decision. If you think they wouldn't you are crazy. Same thing w/ Vick and all the other superstar players. (and before you start bashing me with this one, In no way am I saying LaVar is a superstar) dont forget we are comparing a LB in his prime to a veteran(who is servicable) but not that good. I would be making the same comments if it were Marcus Washington getting benched infavor of Holdman. Regardless of the player, if anyone feels one player is better than the one in front of him, there are going to be questions, and opinions on why there aren't playing. Cant you just leave it alone.[/QUOTE]

You are correct, I do not know you or is it germane.
I think the issue is not the logical, reasonable post you submit above, but rather the conspiratorial, moronic, lunacy posted by a few hysterical "fans" claiming GW and Joe had made it some kind of absurd personal vendetta eclipsing, and abandoning all team oriented goals for the personal revenge or some ridiculous sh...!
Rules are: Joe and GW and staff have one common goal-WIN
Future rules: WIN
Personal rules: WIN
They exist for the team-only as do the players. Joe says "right up front", if these are not your goals, you cannot be a Redskin. I personally would have it no other way. They DO NOT play people with better personal sitting on the bench without reason, and JUST CAUSE.
If that is not you #56, it does not apply. I too, am a Lavar fan and very happy he is back in the lineup. I look for great things out of him, but I COMPLETELY support GW and Joe in this matter

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

It's funny because I thought these comments by LaVar would finally bring some closure to the issue.

For the record I'm not saying "I told you so", well maybe but just to the people who had these crazy theories that LaVar wasn't playing because of some sort of secret vendetta the coaches had against him.

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=FirstandTen]The reason we "bash" what you say is b/c what you were saying about the lavar situation was bashing the team. Your way off base here and missing the point. Lavar was hurt, recovering... thats the main reason why he was not starting. The other reason is because he was hurt and recovering he miss a full season worth of running a new system so he had to catch up there too. Did u read the article. He said he had to learn to run again!! This is nothing like benching a superstar for no reason. There was a reason ... re-read that article if you have too...[/QUOTE]

Oh, so you believe LaVar when he says he wasn't healthy enough to play. But when he said he wasn't getting the opportunity to prove himself in practice that was a lie. Funny how that works when its in your favor.
Look, I am sort of tired of going back and forth with you and anyone else that says I am not a fan. I travel from Charlotte NC to Fed X every home game, and sit in the bottom of the stadium, pay way more than face value and leave the game not being able to speak. I love the TEAM, when they were 14-2 and when they were 3-13. so say what you want. but lets not try to be hipocrits when bashing other people.

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]I think the conspiracy theorists and the sudden Williams haters are what we're mainly talking about.

I have no problem with people rationally questioning a decision, but some of the far out theories that were tossed around were ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

And to be clear, Matty, I'm totally with you on that.

Right now I've just had my fill of this whole "you can't question personnel decisions and still be backing the team" attitude from certain people (obviously not you). I might be wrong when I question the coaches (as I was when I questioned the decision to bench Ramsey in favor of Brunell), but being wrong and being a fan are two completely different things, and that's the distinction that I believe needs to be made.

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic]Oh, so you believe LaVar when he says he wasn't healthy enough to play. But when he said he wasn't getting the opportunity to prove himself in practice that was a lie. Funny how that works when its in your favor.
Look, I am sort of tired of going back and forth with you and anyone else that says I am not a fan. I travel from Charlotte NC to Fed X every home game, and sit in the bottom of the stadium, pay way more than face value and leave the game not being able to speak. I love the TEAM, when they were 14-2 and when they were 3-13. so say what you want. but lets not try to be hipocrits when bashing other people.[/QUOTE]

I never said you were not a Fan. Everyone on this site is a Fan. I disagreed with your logic on the whole Lavar Saga. I believe the saga is over that why this thread got started.

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]It's funny because I thought these comments by LaVar would finally bring some closure to the issue.

For the record I'm not saying "I told you so", well maybe but just to the people who had these crazy theories that LaVar wasn't playing because of some sort of secret vendetta the coaches had against him.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. It's too bad that the tv/radio "personalities" don't have to defend their conspiracy/snyder bashing comments now that Lavar's interview is out.

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic]Do you ever question anyone? You didn't question some of the moves made with playcalling last year? When players from other teams knew what was coming. that comes from interviews with quotes(and no I am not going to be able to find them) from teams we faced. Is every Redskin fan suppose to sit there and not have an opinion about anything? You never question anything? I find that hard to believe. Boy, you question something out here and watch out you get jumped on from all angles. From now on what ever you say is right , and I will just agree with everything said. maybe that will make you people happy. Or maybe you are just the kind of people that look for something to argue about.[/QUOTE]

No - I questioned gibbs decision to keep brunell in there after last year and I questioned him somewhat when he pulled ramsey after just what 2 plus quarters. I questioned him or trading away a few draft picks to get Campbell (probably could have got him cheaper). And I questioned some of the playcalling last year (but I attributed a lot of that to Coles' bad attitude, which is another issue) ... and other things. Some I may be wrong about and some I may be right about, but in this case I find it absurd to question his decision - do you really think you have enough knowledge of the situation to make even make a reasonable opinion on this (let alone a rational alternative decision) or are making your decision because you like lavar the player that much.

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

LaVar rocks. He's going to take out McNabb for good this week.

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

Lets change the subject a bit here.... How many sacks does Lavar get Sunday Night .... and will he be MIC'ed UP?

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

I don't want to count the times I myself said something and had to eat my words. Good thing I don't have microphones around.
lol

It's over for me.
Play ball!

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=FirstandTen]Lets change the subject a bit here.... How many sacks does Lavar get Sunday Night .... and will he be MIC'ed UP?[/QUOTE]
Mic'ed up - yes and I'm looking forward to hearing comments like "That's right Motha!? F$%*!!!" all night long. 2 sacks, one pick. Skins 24 Eagles 21

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=FirstandTen]Lets change the subject a bit here.... How many sacks does Lavar get Sunday Night .... and will he be MIC'ed UP?[/QUOTE]

3 Sacks, 9 tackles (3 for loss), and one QB knocked out of the game.

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=PSUSkinsFan21]See, now this is exactly the SH!T I am talking about. First of all, you fail to recognize that as fans we also know what we see on the field. There is nothing "filtered" or "skewed" about what you can see with your own two eyes on gameday. As a result, it is not "absurd" to question the coaches' personnel decisions.

Second, Joe Gibbs (as much as I love him) is NOT "the Team". No one person, no one coach, no one player is "the Team." You cast aside anyone else who believes Lavar should have been the starter as someone who isn't choosing to back the team. The absurdity of your argument is its hypocracy. It's ok for you to back Gibbs (one man) above all else, and that should be equated with backing the skins, but those of us who back Lavar (one man) can't possibly be behind the Skins as a team? How's that?

Finally, there is no reason for your mandate of "Pick one to keep or kick off: gibbs or lavar?" In case you haven't noticed, they are both on the same TEAM. They are both striving for the same goals. You're assumption that the Team, the coach and the player can't coexist together is rediculous. The fact that they can explains how I can be a fan of the Redskins, Joe Gibbs, and Lavar Arrington without conflict. How you fail to see that is unbelievable to me.

Therefore, as a second, and hopefully final, plea. STOP calling people's fanaticism for the Redskins into question simply because your opinion differs from theirs as to whether it's possible to question personnel decisions and still love your team to no end. Nothing is going to enrage people more than having their being a fan called into question on this site, and I don't see that as a fight we need to have AGAIN.[/QUOTE]

Like you, I am entitled to my personal opinion as I stated in the post - and yeah (in my personal opinion, because that's what all these posts really are) without gibbs there is no team - there are no 4 wins - and lastly the attitude and moral of this team would be SHIT. I'd take not having Lavar, just as long as it meant having gibbs. And also I think part of the argument is that lavar was not actually putting the team first - he was putting his playing time ahead of team goals - you have to remember that he was complaining when the team was performing well (as a team).

And if you want to be enraged for me posting my opinion - then I'd call that HYPOCRISY.

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

6 sacks. 13 tackles. 1 fumble recovery (after smacking Donavan)

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

All these peoples are asshole with their i told u ..I was a critic and a Arrington Supporter and after the 1st game he played and leg or not he played well i didnt throw anything in their faces.... I personally think Arrington is just being a team player showing why he's the leader of this team and he had every reason to speak out... he is just taking one for the team why dont you spend your time saying it's over instead of i told you so and pitting players and everyone against everyone.... like after the sunday loss i defended the skins even tho we stunk up the field ...but i know they are gonna be alright ...thats why i spent $680 for 2 tix to the eagles game.... enoughs enough he's a part of the team gibbs is williams is and so is portis ...lets be fans and stop i told u so and he's wrong and this person is wrong...this isn't eagles crybaby fanland this is a place for real football fans Redskins fans!!!!

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic]The reason I said he playing is because the side that Holdman was playing was getting gashed. the reason LaVar played the 2nd half. If LaVar was getting gashed, then fine replace him. I dont understand why I as well as anyother 56 fan have to defend ourselves when we think one player is better than the one playing. I was not the only one questioning it, The football people, who by the way know a hell of a lot more than you and I, questioned it also. Look we can agree to disagree. Never have I said LaVar is above the team. If for one second I thought he would hurt our chances from winning, I would say replace him. send him packing. Now if he doesn't make the impact we all think he can, then he will be playing else where next year. If he makes the impact then he may be back. who knows. No one was more excited to have Joe back than me. I grew up in the late 70's early 80's when Joe was a god in DC, and still is. I would choose gibbs over any player, that is a no brainer. But because I feel one player is better than the other I have to listen to you all bash what I say, so I say bring it on!! I am game.[/QUOTE]

no one cares if you have an opinion about whether lavar should play or not. People DID care that people were calling for GW's head and kept repeating that he benched lavar cause he hated him (and that there couldn't possibly be any other reason at all for sitting him).

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=funandgunner]No - I questioned gibbs decision to keep brunell in there after last year and I questioned him somewhat when he pulled ramsey after just what 2 plus quarters. I questioned him or trading away a few draft picks to get Campbell (probably could have got him cheaper). And I questioned some of the playcalling last year (but I attributed a lot of that to Coles' bad attitude, which is another issue) ... and other things. Some I may be wrong about and some I may be right about, but in this case I find it absurd to question his decision - do you really think you have enough knowledge of the situation to make even make a reasonable opinion on this (let alone a rational alternative decision) or are making your decision because you like lavar the player that much.[/QUOTE]

dude's allowed to have an opinion. If only gibbs is allowed to post here, that's no good. Calling coaches liars and wanting them fired for benching a player is unbelievable though ;)

You're back peddling here though, you say its fine to have an opinion except here, and maybe later, there... I really don't think you've been put in charge of parcelling out opinions and keeping track of their quotas, so I don't see why there's such a need for red-flagging here.

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=FirstandTen]Lets change the subject a bit here.... How many sacks does Lavar get Sunday Night .... and will he be MIC'ed UP?[/QUOTE]
hell yes!!!! worry about the eagles ...lavars playing ....all this is over

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=funandgunner]Like you, I am entitled to my personal opinion as I stated in the post - and yeah (in my personal opinion, because that's what all these posts really are) without gibbs there is no team - there are no 4 wins - and lastly the attitude and moral of this team would be SHIT. I'd take not having Lavar, just as long as it meant having gibbs. And also I think part of the argument is that lavar was not actually putting the team first - he was putting his playing time ahead of team goals - you have to remember that he was complaining when the team was performing well (as a team).

And if you want to be enraged for me posting my opinion - then I'd call that HYPOCRISY.[/QUOTE]

hate to multipost after missing convos, its a bad habit :P maybe I should drop out to stay current...

I think you missed the point of PSU's post, he's generally been saying you can have an opinion, but don't piss on other people (saying they aren't fans, they're idiots, they're opinions suck or that they aren't allowed to have them).

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=PSUSkinsFan21]Right now I've just had my fill of this whole "you can't question personnel decisions and still be backing the team" attitude from certain people (obviously not you). I might be wrong when I question the coaches (as I was when I questioned the decision to bench Ramsey in favor of Brunell), but being wrong and being a fan are two completely different things, and that's the distinction that I believe needs to be made.[/QUOTE]
100% correct in my opinion. If I come off as thinking you can't question the coaches and still be a fan then I apologize because that is in no way what I mean. I think people do need to realize that while we can have opinions about this type of stuff we basically know nothing compared to the coaches and it seems silly to get so ardently behind a position in opposition to the coaches. I learned this very thing with the whole Brunell deal. Like Terry Bradshaw said "I will never think I know more about what is going than Joe Gibbs(paraphrase)". That's not to say Gibbs is always right but I do trust that he has the best intentions and clearly knows a hell of a lot about football and how to win at it. I have areal problem with the conspiracy theorists who obviously are emotionally attached to a player over the team. I don't have a problem with someone who says they think Lavar should be playing and that the reasons he isn't playing are wrong.

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

It's already been mentioned five or six times on this thread alone, but some people still aren't seeing the point.

No one is saying anyone is stupid for thinking LaVar should have been starting instead of Holdman. You ask 100 people on this board and 99 are going to tell you that LaVar Arrington is a better player than Warrick Holdman (the lone person probably being Holdman's mommy). So no one is calling out your loyalty based on an opinion that LA should have started from the beginning.

What we've been mainly against were the [i]reasons[/i] people were giving for the benching. It's one thing to believe Arrington should have been playing b/c you felt he a) was healthy enough or b) a 50 percent LA is better than 100 percent Holdman or c) arrington's energy and playmaking abilities outweigh his potential to give up the big play in GW's scheme.

But many of the arguments weren't football-related. They were along the lines of "Gregg Williams wants to prove he can succeed in this league with a bunch of no-names" or "Gibbs doesn't like his attitude and wants to show the team that no one is above it" or "Dan Snyder has mandated from above to teach Arrington a lesson about messing with his money re: arbitration bonus."

Now a bunch of us tried to tell you guys why Arrington wasn't playing- and all of our reasons were related to on-field production. They could have been right or wrong, but the opinions were focused on football. But the half the arguments back to us were emotionally charged, non-football related hyperbole. We're all Lavar Arrington supporters- he's been the franchise during the dark years, so why would we hate on him? It's just that we had a problem when some fans started saying that GW's stubborness was killing this team (have we forgotten what the strength of the team has been?) and Gibbs had too big of an ego.

After Arrington's interview last night, I can't believe some people are still dragging out the conspiricy theories (such as LaVar being forced to say the right things now). LA showed why he's my favorite player by manning up and saying he was wrong. He was wrong about his injury, he was wrong about his quality of play this season, he was wrong about his knowledge of the system till now. You know how hard that's gotta be for a pro-bowl linebacker with a 68 million dollar contract extension to say he was wrong to the media?

If he can admit that to ESPN, why is it so hard for a few people to admit to a bunch of friends on a messageboard that their Gibbs/GW vitriole was way out of line?

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=itvnetop]It's already been mentioned five or six times on this thread alone, but some people still aren't seeing the point.

No one is saying anyone is stupid for thinking LaVar should have been starting instead of Holdman. You ask 100 people on this board and 99 are going to tell you that LaVar Arrington is a better player than Warrick Holdman (the lone person probably being Holdman's mommy). So no one is calling out your loyalty based on an opinion that LA should have started from the beginning.

What we've been mainly against were the [i]reasons[/i] people were giving for the benching. It's one thing to believe Arrington should have been playing b/c you felt he a) was healthy enough or b) a 50 percent LA is better than 100 percent Holdman or c) arrington's energy and playmaking abilities outweigh his potential to give up the big play in GW's scheme.

But many of the arguments weren't football-related. They were along the lines of "Gregg Williams wants to prove he can succeed in this league with a bunch of no-names" or "Gibbs doesn't like his attitude and wants to show the team that no one is above it" or "Dan Snyder has mandated from above to teach Arrington a lesson about messing with his money re: arbitration bonus."

Now a bunch of us tried to tell you guys why Arrington wasn't playing- and all of our reasons were related to on-field production. They could have been right or wrong, but the opinions were focused on football. But the half the arguments back to us were emotionally charged, non-football related hyperbole. We're all Lavar Arrington supporters- he's been the franchise during the dark years, so why would we hate on him? It's just that we had a problem when some fans started saying that GW's stubborness was killing this team (have we forgotten what the strength of the team has been?) and Gibbs had too big of an ego.

After Arrington's interview last night, I can't believe some people are still dragging out the conspiricy theories (such as LaVar being forced to say the right things now). LA showed why he's my favorite player by manning up and saying he was wrong. He was wrong about his injury, he was wrong about his quality of play this season, he was wrong about his knowledge of the system till now. You know how hard that's gotta be for a pro-bowl linebacker with a 68 million dollar contract extension to say he was wrong to the media?

If he can admit that to ESPN, why is it so hard for a few people to admit to a bunch of friends on a messageboard that their Gibbs/GW vitriole was way out of line?[/QUOTE]

What a great post. I think that sums it up perfectly

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=itvnetop]It's already been mentioned five or six times on this thread alone, but some people still aren't seeing the point.

No one is saying anyone is stupid for thinking LaVar should have been starting instead of Holdman. You ask 100 people on this board and 99 are going to tell you that LaVar Arrington is a better player than Warrick Holdman (the lone person probably being Holdman's mommy). So no one is calling out your loyalty based on an opinion that LA should have started from the beginning.

What we've been mainly against were the [i]reasons[/i] people were giving for the benching. It's one thing to believe Arrington should have been playing b/c you felt he a) was healthy enough or b) a 50 percent LA is better than 100 percent Holdman or c) arrington's energy and playmaking abilities outweigh his potential to give up the big play in GW's scheme.

But many of the arguments weren't football-related. They were along the lines of "Gregg Williams wants to prove he can succeed in this league with a bunch of no-names" or "Gibbs doesn't like his attitude and wants to show the team that no one is above it" or "Dan Snyder has mandated from above to teach Arrington a lesson about messing with his money re: arbitration bonus."

Now a bunch of us tried to tell you guys why Arrington wasn't playing- and all of our reasons were related to on-field production. They could have been right or wrong, but the opinions were focused on football. But the half the arguments back to us were emotionally charged, non-football related hyperbole. We're all Lavar Arrington supporters- he's been the franchise during the dark years, so why would we hate on him? It's just that we had a problem when some fans started saying that GW's stubborness was killing this team (have we forgotten what the strength of the team has been?) and Gibbs had too big of an ego.

After Arrington's interview last night, I can't believe some people are still dragging out the conspiricy theories (such as LaVar being forced to say the right things now). LA showed why he's my favorite player by manning up and saying he was wrong. He was wrong about his injury, he was wrong about his quality of play this season, he was wrong about his knowledge of the system till now. You know how hard that's gotta be for a pro-bowl linebacker with a 68 million dollar contract extension to say he was wrong to the media?

If he can admit that to ESPN, why is it so hard for a few people to admit to a bunch of friends on a messageboard that their Gibbs/GW vitriole was way out of line?[/QUOTE]
Fantastic post! Sums my thoughts up very nicely.

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=itvnetop]It's already been mentioned five or six times on this thread alone, but some people still aren't seeing the point.

No one is saying anyone is stupid for thinking LaVar should have been starting instead of Holdman. You ask 100 people on this board and 99 are going to tell you that LaVar Arrington is a better player than Warrick Holdman (the lone person probably being Holdman's mommy). So no one is calling out your loyalty based on an opinion that LA should have started from the beginning.

What we've been mainly against were the [i]reasons[/i] people were giving for the benching. It's one thing to believe Arrington should have been playing b/c you felt he a) was healthy enough or b) a 50 percent LA is better than 100 percent Holdman or c) arrington's energy and playmaking abilities outweigh his potential to give up the big play in GW's scheme.

But many of the arguments weren't football-related. They were along the lines of "Gregg Williams wants to prove he can succeed in this league with a bunch of no-names" or "Gibbs doesn't like his attitude and wants to show the team that no one is above it" or "Dan Snyder has mandated from above to teach Arrington a lesson about messing with his money re: arbitration bonus."

Now a bunch of us tried to tell you guys why Arrington wasn't playing- and all of our reasons were related to on-field production. They could have been right or wrong, but the opinions were focused on football. But the half the arguments back to us were emotionally charged, non-football related hyperbole. We're all Lavar Arrington supporters- he's been the franchise during the dark years, so why would we hate on him? It's just that we had a problem when some fans started saying that GW's stubborness was killing this team (have we forgotten what the strength of the team has been?) and Gibbs had too big of an ego.

After Arrington's interview last night, I can't believe some people are still dragging out the conspiricy theories (such as LaVar being forced to say the right things now). LA showed why he's my favorite player by manning up and saying he was wrong. He was wrong about his injury, he was wrong about his quality of play this season, he was wrong about his knowledge of the system till now. You know how hard that's gotta be for a pro-bowl linebacker with a 68 million dollar contract extension to say he was wrong to the media?

If he can admit that to ESPN, why is it so hard for a few people to admit to a bunch of friends on a messageboard that their Gibbs/GW vitriole was way out of line?[/QUOTE]

Thank you. Excellent post.

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

i wont quote you again, but that is a good post ;)

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=funandgunner]No - I questioned gibbs decision to keep brunell in there after last year and I questioned him somewhat when he pulled ramsey after just what 2 plus quarters. I questioned him or trading away a few draft picks to get Campbell (probably could have got him cheaper). And I questioned some of the playcalling last year (but I attributed a lot of that to Coles' bad attitude, which is another issue) ... and other things. Some I may be wrong about and some I may be right about, but in this case I find it absurd to question his decision - do you really think you have enough knowledge of the situation to make even make a reasonable opinion on this (let alone a rational alternative decision) or are making your decision because you like lavar the player that much.[/QUOTE]

OK, so lets get this straight. Its ok for you to question things you feel,in your opinion, are questionable. And from what I remember, Coles never had a headset on to call any plays so where you get bad playcalling based on coles bad attitude thats way off dude!!! questioning the decision to play Brunell instead Ramsey is different in what way we felt the Redskins should play LaVar over Holdman. Because I have 56 in my logname? you should probably not argue this point anymore after what you just said. You have made no sense what so ever.

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=funandgunner]Like you, I am entitled to my personal opinion as I stated in the post - and yeah (in my personal opinion, because that's what all these posts really are) without gibbs there is no team - there are no 4 wins - and lastly the attitude and moral of this team would be SHIT. I'd take not having Lavar, just as long as it meant having gibbs. And also I think part of the argument is that lavar was not actually putting the team first - he was putting his playing time ahead of team goals - you have to remember that he was complaining when the team was performing well (as a team).

And if you want to be enraged for me posting my opinion - then I'd call that HYPOCRISY.[/QUOTE]

You know, you people crack me up. You argue the same point back and forth. Peoples words are getting turned around to suit arguementative points. You say LaVar is not the TEAM, you are right. But Gibbs is not the TEAM either, GW is not the TEAM, Portis is not the TEAM. It is a TEAM from top to bottom. there is no picking gibbs or lavar, thats rediculous. the defense was playing chicago, Dallas, and then Seattle, which seattle took advantage of Holdmans side too with a couple of long runds. then Denver, KC, both took advantage of the weakside. Look, are you going to argue that Holdman is better? Are you serious. that is just obviously wrong.

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=itvnetop]It's already been mentioned five or six times on this thread alone, but some people still aren't seeing the point.

No one is saying anyone is stupid for thinking LaVar should have been starting instead of Holdman. You ask 100 people on this board and 99 are going to tell you that LaVar Arrington is a better player than Warrick Holdman (the lone person probably being Holdman's mommy). So no one is calling out your loyalty based on an opinion that LA should have started from the beginning.

What we've been mainly against were the [i]reasons[/i] people were giving for the benching. It's one thing to believe Arrington should have been playing b/c you felt he a) was healthy enough or b) a 50 percent LA is better than 100 percent Holdman or c) arrington's energy and playmaking abilities outweigh his potential to give up the big play in GW's scheme.

But many of the arguments weren't football-related. They were along the lines of "Gregg Williams wants to prove he can succeed in this league with a bunch of no-names" or "Gibbs doesn't like his attitude and wants to show the team that no one is above it" or "Dan Snyder has mandated from above to teach Arrington a lesson about messing with his money re: arbitration bonus."

Now a bunch of us tried to tell you guys why Arrington wasn't playing- and all of our reasons were related to on-field production. They could have been right or wrong, but the opinions were focused on football. But the half the arguments back to us were emotionally charged, non-football related hyperbole. We're all Lavar Arrington supporters- he's been the franchise during the dark years, so why would we hate on him? It's just that we had a problem when some fans started saying that GW's stubborness was killing this team (have we forgotten what the strength of the team has been?) and Gibbs had too big of an ego.

After Arrington's interview last night, I can't believe some people are still dragging out the conspiricy theories (such as LaVar being forced to say the right things now). LA showed why he's my favorite player by manning up and saying he was wrong. He was wrong about his injury, he was wrong about his quality of play this season, he was wrong about his knowledge of the system till now. You know how hard that's gotta be for a pro-bowl linebacker with a 68 million dollar contract extension to say he was wrong to the media?

If he can admit that to ESPN, why is it so hard for a few people to admit to a bunch of friends on a messageboard that their Gibbs/GW vitriole was way out of line?[/QUOTE]


it is a nice post. I do believe everyone out here is extatic that LaVar is finally on the field. I just want to make one point and I know I will get crap for it but here it goes.
As all of you know I was one of the biggest LaVar supporters out here. In the beginning when LaVar was saying he is 100% health, or even 90% healthy and wasn't getting the opportunity to prove himself, you didn't believe a word he was saying. When we questioned the coaches decisions and said LaVar at 90% was better than Holdman we were wrong for questioning them. Now, when LaVar comes out and says he wasn't healthy, and 100% knowledgeable, all of the sudden, you believe LaVar, hes a man for stepping up. seems funny you hear or listen to things you want to hear. We all heard from ESPN, FOX, Comcast that LaVar was healthy, ready to play that there was something else going on why he wasn't playing. that the organization was upset with LaVar and the way he was handlling everything. You tell me what organization is going to come out and say "yeah, he messed up in the offseason with the whole contract thing, then critisized the team about his injury" I dont think any team is going to come out and say that. i am not saying this is the reason he didn't play early in the season. I am just making a point that people will hear what they want to hear. People will say something is wrong with what that person said, then turn completely around if that same person says something they want to hear or agree with.

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic]You know, you people crack me up. You argue the same point back and forth. Peoples words are getting turned around to suit arguementative points. You say LaVar is not the TEAM, you are right. But Gibbs is not the TEAM either, GW is not the TEAM, Portis is not the TEAM. It is a TEAM from top to bottom. there is no picking gibbs or lavar, thats rediculous. the defense was playing chicago, Dallas, and then Seattle, which seattle took advantage of Holdmans side too with a couple of long runds. then Denver, KC, both took advantage of the weakside. Look, are you going to argue that Holdman is better? Are you serious. that is just obviously wrong.[/QUOTE]

Bottomline you 56er's are just that - Arrington fanatics. Even when he says one thing - you 56er's say he was forced to say it. No matter what he says or does, he will be a god to you guys. That's my point - you guys don't have a clue and yeah i'm calling out your loyalty to the team - because you are looking after another player's best interest at the expense of the team. I can question your loyalty to the team if that is how i see it, it's MY OPINION - no one else's - and if you feel enraged or whatever because of my post - then you have issues. If you are letting my post affect you that much, then I must be pushing the right buttons - and there may be questions that you need to ask yourself. You can attack me for my opinion - but at the same time you better know that what you post is also fair game. And I will call it like I see - no holds barred. If you guys take offense to me calling out your loyalty to the team, then so be it - i'm not holding back my opinions for no one. I mean it's even in your member name - 56 fanatic.

And yeah i think without gibbs, this year and last year - there would not be a team and we would have you ramsey, arrington fanatics running wild and out of control. I am fans of players,but first I'm a fan of the redskins - gibbs is the team, he controls the attitude, direction, and what happens on the field - without him, there is no team. If think differently, then let me know why he isn't the team...

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic]it is a nice post. I do believe everyone out here is extatic that LaVar is finally on the field. I just want to make one point and I know I will get crap for it but here it goes.
As all of you know I was one of the biggest LaVar supporters out here. In the beginning when LaVar was saying he is 100% health, or even 90% healthy and wasn't getting the opportunity to prove himself, you didn't believe a word he was saying. When we questioned the coaches decisions and said LaVar at 90% was better than Holdman we were wrong for questioning them. Now, when LaVar comes out and says he wasn't healthy, and 100% knowledgeable, all of the sudden, you believe LaVar, hes a man for stepping up. seems funny you hear or listen to things you want to hear. We all heard from ESPN, FOX, Comcast that LaVar was healthy, ready to play that there was something else going on why he wasn't playing. that the organization was upset with LaVar and the way he was handlling everything. You tell me what organization is going to come out and say "yeah, he messed up in the offseason with the whole contract thing, then critisized the team about his injury" I dont think any team is going to come out and say that. i am not saying this is the reason he didn't play early in the season. I am just making a point that people will hear what they want to hear. People will say something is wrong with what that person said, then turn completely around if that same person says something they want to hear or agree with.[/QUOTE]
Your right here lets see wasn't it ohh lavar isnt a team player ... then it was oh he wont play special teams ...then it was he is always out of postion...then it was he should keep his mouth shut...then it was well he needs to prove himself ..then it was oh he has so much to prove..... if he can still play...and then it was when Williams got too much heat it was well now he isnt healthy..... It was all BS and Lavar is taking one for the team... but u guys wanna hammer the i told u so like children...well try sucking up all the how has to prove himself and he's not a team player comments... oh and all the overrated comments ...you were wrong too ... so why not let it die this shit is old ...and what the fuck is it proving and lavar at 50% is better than any LB on that roster ..he's just being a team player and leader and speaking out so he can start ...regardless who is right what is this serving besides fighting..... and suddenly everybody is happy he's starting BS....

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic]it is a nice post. I do believe everyone out here is extatic that LaVar is finally on the field. I just want to make one point and I know I will get crap for it but here it goes.
As all of you know I was one of the biggest LaVar supporters out here. In the beginning when LaVar was saying he is 100% health, or even 90% healthy and wasn't getting the opportunity to prove himself, you didn't believe a word he was saying. When we questioned the coaches decisions and said LaVar at 90% was better than Holdman we were wrong for questioning them. Now, when LaVar comes out and says he wasn't healthy, and 100% knowledgeable, all of the sudden, you believe LaVar, hes a man for stepping up. seems funny you hear or listen to things you want to hear. We all heard from ESPN, FOX, Comcast that LaVar was healthy, ready to play that there was something else going on why he wasn't playing. that the organization was upset with LaVar and the way he was handlling everything. You tell me what organization is going to come out and say "yeah, he messed up in the offseason with the whole contract thing, then critisized the team about his injury" I dont think any team is going to come out and say that. i am not saying this is the reason he didn't play early in the season. I am just making a point that people will hear what they want to hear. People will say something is wrong with what that person said, then turn completely around if that same person says something they want to hear or agree with.[/QUOTE]

maybe no one believes lavar, and its just that what he's saying happens to agree with what the coaches and everyone else are saying right now... that's a REALLY weak arguement.

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=funandgunner]Bottomline you 56er's are just that - Arrington fanatics. Even when he says one thing - you 56er's say he was forced to say it. No matter what he says or does, he will be a god to you guys. That's my point - you guys don't have a clue and yeah i'm calling out your loyalty to the team - because you are looking after another player's best interest at the expense of the team. I can question your loyalty to the team if that is how i see it, it's MY OPINION - no one else's - and if you feel enraged or whatever because of my post - then you have issues. If you are letting my post affect you that much, then I must be pushing the right buttons - and there may be questions that you need to ask yourself. You can attack me for my opinion - but at the same time you better know that what you post is also fair game. And I will call it like I see - no holds barred. If you guys take offense to me calling out your loyalty to the team, then so be it - i'm not holding back my opinions for no one. I mean it's even in your member name - 56 fanatic.

And yeah i think without gibbs, this year and last year - there would not be a team and we would have you ramsey, arrington fanatics running wild and out of control. I am fans of players,but first I'm a fan of the redskins - gibbs is the team, he controls the attitude, direction, and what happens on the field - without him, there is no team. If think differently, then let me know why he isn't the team...[/QUOTE]

there's a difference between debating and attacking... and so far I think you're the only one that's thrown insults and questioned people's loyalty, so... pot, kettle, etc.

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=railcon56@comcast.net]Your right here lets see wasn't it ohh lavar isnt a team player ... then it was oh he wont play special teams ...then it was he is always out of postion...then it was he should keep his mouth shut...then it was well he needs to prove himself ..then it was oh he has so much to prove..... if he can still play...and then it was when Williams got too much heat it was well now he isnt healthy..... It was all BS and Lavar is taking one for the team... but u guys wanna hammer the i told u so like children...well try sucking up all the how has to prove himself and he's not a team player comments... oh and all the overrated comments ...you were wrong too ... so why not let it die this shit is old ...and what the fuck is it proving and lavar at 50% is better than any LB on that roster ..he's just being a team player and leader and speaking out so he can start ...regardless who is right what is this serving besides fighting..... and suddenly everybody is happy he's starting BS....[/QUOTE]

First off, stop the childish rant please, it doesn't prove anything or help anyone. The arguement that lavar is possibly overrated hasn't magically been overturned by his 2 tackle performance last week, and most people said they'd like him to start, so that's not BS. Some here still seem to emotionally attached to the subject to be objective about it...

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]there's a difference between debating and attacking... and so far I think you're the only one that's thrown insults and questioned people's loyalty, so... pot, kettle, etc.[/QUOTE]
No i havent questioned anyones loyalites others have but people are saying us 56 supporters are not true fans well lets turn that around...childish ..HELL YES it is thats why it should have been dropped ..but u wanna keep beating the drum and wont let it drop i happen to belive in what 56 is posting so i thought i would join in.... its all dumb we should have let this go along time ago but people wanna keep up with the i told u so's and all that well ...we have opinions too....

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

holy crap... you guys are still carrying this crap out... BOTH sides of the argument are wrong, and its done. Its settled. He's not talking crap in the media, and he's back on the field where he belongs. I think this would be fitting here:

[img]http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7962/358/1600/retarded.jpg[/img]


I know this has been around for a while, but when I saw it in the super happy fun thread, I spewed milk out of my nose.

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=railcon56@comcast.net]No i havent questioned anyones loyalites others have but people are saying us 56 supporters are not true fans well lets turn that around...childish ..HELL YES it is thats why it should have been dropped ..but u wanna keep beating the drum and wont let it drop i happen to belive in what 56 is posting so i thought i would join in.... its all dumb we should have let this go along time ago but people wanna keep up with the i told u so's and all that well ...we have opinions too....[/QUOTE]

dude, read my post more carefully, I was responding to funandgunner, not you :P he was the one that brought crap out...

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]there's a difference between debating and attacking... and so far I think you're the only one that's thrown insults and questioned people's loyalty, so... pot, kettle, etc.[/QUOTE]

Let's get to the true heart of the matter. The closest thing I can compare the whole fan loyalty to Arrington (or to any other player for that matter) versus the coaches is: a father of a pop warner player. A father is a fan and supporter of his son's team to a certain point. That same father of course is looking at his son's best interest first and foremost, so if his son gets his playing time cut then the father is going to be questioning why and more than likely will think it is unfair. So that father is a fan of the son's team to a certain extent, as long as it doesn't go against what is best for his son. The father will wear the team's colors, go to games, and root for the team and other players - but only because his son is on that team.

This situation reminds me of that father loyalty. Arrington is a grown ass man, he doesn't need anyone talking or sticking up for him. Let him play and earn his playing time, if the coaches play him that's their perrogative because the coaches are looking at the best interest of the team first and foremost - not just arrington's. If you don't think the coaches are looking at the best interest of the team, then that would be another argument... because if that were the case, then I would ask you how they weren't looking at the team first other than this arrington situation.

I don't know about you, but I kinda enjoy this type of argument because unlike some of you - what you see as a argument(verbal fight), I see as getting to the heart of the matter and getting to the truth. And unlike some others on this site, I will say what I really want because it is what I really feel. My intention in posting any of this was not to insult or upset anyone (myself included) because I know that everyone here is a redskins fan. But while I say that, I question how much of a redskins fan you all are - the only thing I am asking: are you an arrington fan first (like the father above) or are a redskins fan first ?

This argument will continue because I am not getting anything that really is of any substance and the only responses to the questions I am asking are : don't question fan's loyalty and I am insulting other fans. Sorry if you feel like I am enraging or insulting you by questioning your team loyalty - but if you are a fan of the team (first and foremost above being an Arrington fan), then tell me how you are (but first look at what the father does above for this son's team... wear the team's colors, go to the games, root for the team).

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]there's a difference between debating and attacking... and so far I think you're the only one that's thrown insults and questioned people's loyalty, so... pot, kettle, etc.[/QUOTE]

... and trust me, if you see that I'm the only one that has been attacking others or throwing insults around - you must have selective vision. Almost everyone that has posted on here, has attacked another post in one way or another.

Re: Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]dude, read my post more carefully, I was responding to funandgunner, not you :P he was the one that brought crap out...[/QUOTE]
ok that guy sorry look we have a big game lets be happy and enjoy... peace