Giants Cut Arrington, Emmons, Petigout, and Morton

[Gmanc711]

Sign Lavar!?!?!

[hesscl34]

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

Sign Lavar!?!?!

I actually think this isn't a half bad idea... if he would sign for little or no $$$$ compared to the last time he was a Redskin. He's injury prone, but he's great for morale......

Too bad he hates Gibbs.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by hesscl34

I actually think this isn't a half bad idea... if he would sign for little or no $$$$ compared to the last time he was a Redskin. He's injury prone, but he's great for morale......

Too bad he hates Gibbs.

How is he 'great' for morale? He's moody and mouths off a lot. He clearly clashed with coaches and he isn't the type to keep quiet about it. I tend to think he is the worst kind of cancer a team can have. The nice guy kind. Everyone loves Lavar. 'He's so nice". All the while he is subtly undermining the coaching staff and expecting things that no one should expect. I by no means think he was at total fault for the way things went down but I do think that he was at least 50% responsible and only because of that jackass Lindsey can we even put some blame on the coaching staff. Lavar is BAD for a team and it's morale. And now he isn't talented enough anymore to be put up with like he was before.

[hesscl34]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

How is he 'great' for morale? He's moody and mouths off a lot. He clearly clashed with coaches and he isn't the type to keep quiet about it. I tend to think he is the worst kind of cancer a team can have. The nice guy kind. Everyone loves Lavar. 'He's so nice". All the while he is subtly undermining the coaching staff and expecting things that no one should expect. I by no means think he was at total fault for the way things went down but I do think that he was at least 50% responsible and only because of that jackass Lindsey can we even put some blame on the coaching staff. Lavar is BAD for a team and it's morale. And now he isn't talented enough anymore to be put up with like he was before.

He had a good relatinoship wtih some of the other players like ST, Portis, Moss..... He seemed to build morale among them...

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

I agree that getting a GM is not a cure-all, but I still support the idea of getting one. Sometimes GMs clash with the coaches to the detriment of the team (See San Diego), but such clashes can also be healthy. A GM should be like a board of directors that ensures that the officers (coaches) are looking out for the team's long-term interests (which oftentimes, they fail to do). I don't think our front office is the worst one in the NFL, but I think a good GM could make it better.

[#56fanatic]

we all have our reasons for liking or disliking LaVar. Obviously, I am on the LIKE side. I think he can be a very productive player (when healthy). He proved it in our run for the playoffs. He loved DC, the fans, and felt the tradition of what it meant to be a Redskin. We dont know what was actually said in those meetings, and I am sure LaVar, being outspoken as he is, contributed to a lot of what happened. I dont dispute that. But he was not 100% of the problem and I am sure all of us can agree to that. The fact remains, when he is healthy and on the field he brings a physical nature and a play making ability that other teams have to game plan for. He was really starting to play at a high level when he tore his achillis, and was not having problems with his knee. Jansen had the same injury and came back very strong and had a solid year. I am sure he is not going to anticipate a big payday. which he shouldn't. He will be an upgrade from Marshall and Holdman. I say MLB is a position that he would be pretty good at.
My opinion.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

we all have our reasons for liking or disliking LaVar. Obviously, I am on the LIKE side. I think he can be a very productive player (when healthy). He proved it in our run for the playoffs. He loved DC, the fans, and felt the tradition of what it meant to be a Redskin. We dont know what was actually said in those meetings, and I am sure LaVar, being outspoken as he is, contributed to a lot of what happened. I dont dispute that. But he was not 100% of the problem and I am sure all of us can agree to that. The fact remains, when he is healthy and on the field he brings a physical nature and a play making ability that other teams have to game plan for. He was really starting to play at a high level when he tore his achillis, and was not having problems with his knee. Jansen had the same injury and came back very strong and had a solid year. I am sure he is not going to anticipate a big payday. which he shouldn't. He will be an upgrade from Marshall and Holdman. I say MLB is a position that he would be pretty good at.
My opinion.

The problem is when is he healthy?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

we all have our reasons for liking or disliking LaVar. Obviously, I am on the LIKE side. I think he can be a very productive player (when healthy). He proved it in our run for the playoffs. He loved DC, the fans, and felt the tradition of what it meant to be a Redskin. We dont know what was actually said in those meetings, and I am sure LaVar, being outspoken as he is, contributed to a lot of what happened. I dont dispute that. But he was not 100% of the problem and I am sure all of us can agree to that. The fact remains, when he is healthy and on the field he brings a physical nature and a play making ability that other teams have to game plan for. He was really starting to play at a high level when he tore his achillis, and was not having problems with his knee. Jansen had the same injury and came back very strong and had a solid year. I am sure he is not going to anticipate a big payday. which he shouldn't. He will be an upgrade from Marshall and Holdman. I say MLB is a position that he would be pretty good at.
My opinion.

There are so many ifs and yeah buts in this post:

1) He can be a player when healthy, but when is he ever on the field?

2) He may not have been 100% of the problem, but he was more than 0% of the problem. Why would we want someone who is a problem AT ALL?

3) In GW's defense, the MLB makes all the calls. Arrington is an emotional player, he's not a heady player. I wouldn't want him making calls.

4) He's not going to be recovered from the Achilles problem come the 2007 season. We need the roster spot. After all, that's why the Giants cut him (he was only due to make $900K in base salary, so it absolutely wasn't a cap decision to cut him).

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

(he was only due to make $900K in base salary, so it absolutely wasn't a cap decision to cut him).

I read that too and thought, "the injury must have been much worse than publicized for them to cut him and shave only $1M or so off of the cap."

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I read that too and thought, "the injury must have been much worse than publicized for them to cut him and shave only $1M or so off of the cap."

Don't forget, his signing bonus was $5.25 million. Divide that by 7 years, that allocates $750,000 in bonus per year. He only completed one year of the deal, meaning that cutting Arrington forces the Giants to eat $4.5 million in dead cap space in 2007. Net that against the savings from the $900K base salary, and they're actually taking a $3.6 million cap hit in 2007 to get rid of him.

That should speak volumes about their opinion of his physical abilities for the 2007 season. And who would know better than them? It's the NYG team doctors that are keeping an eye on him, and keeping the front office in the loop.