Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post - Arrington: 'I could have handled things a bit better'

itvnetop · 11-04-2005, 08:06 PM

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 reasons 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?

11-04-2005, 08:06 PM	#3
itvnetop Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Los Angeles, CA Age: 49 Posts: 3,007	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 reasons 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? Last edited by itvnetop; 11-04-2005 at 08:21 PM.