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).