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

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by funandgunner

As fans, questioning the coaches for their personnel decisions is absurd - you don't even know what the hell is going on except what the media and the team leaks to you. Whether the reasons are an attitude adjustment, motivational issues, or player performance, you as a fan are getting a filtered and skewed image of these reasons. No one is above being benched - No One, if that is what is needed to improve them and the team.

....

And as for questioning the hall of fame, triple superbowl-winning coach - do you really think that your football and personal knowledge of the situation is greater than Gibbs ? And to me, gibbs is the team - I'd rather have it his team than having it Lavar's team. So to me personally, you either back up gibbs and the redskins or Lavar, the player - and not both. Pick one to keep or kick off: gibbs or lavar ?

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.

[funandgunner]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[MTK]

Wow, turns out the coaches knew a thing or two.

Go figure.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Wow, turns out the coaches knew a thing or two.

Go figure.

SHOCKING!

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Wow, turns out the coaches knew a thing or two.

Go figure.

Gosh, who woulda thunk it?

Maybe it's a conspiracy. Maybe Gibbs and GW have something against Warrick Holdman now. Maybe Dan Snyder is behind it. Maybe that WASN'T Lavar who was speaking to the media. I think we should keep second guessing.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Gosh, who woulda thunk it?

Maybe it's a conspiracy. Maybe Gibbs and GW have something against Warrick Holdman now. Maybe Dan Snyder is behind it. Maybe that WASN'T Lavar who was speaking to the media. I think we should keep second guessing.

Maybe it's him...

[That Guy]

well, we said at the time once lavar starts playing all the new flood of lavar56 names would magically go away, so no big shock there

the big point was we were wrong on brunell, and unlike gibbs, GW turned in a #3 D last year, so its kinda hard not to trust his competence... or ask for him to be fired? I mean really...

[funandgunner]

Originally Posted by That Guy

well, we said at the time once lavar starts playing all the new flood of lavar56 names would magically go away, so no big shock there

the big point was we were wrong on brunell, and unlike gibbs, GW turned in a #3 D last year, so its kinda hard not to trust his competence... or ask for him to be fired? I mean really...

Hopefully, the redskins players fans have finally been converted into redskins team fans. There are still some Ramsey fans out there that are still rebelling against the team concept.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Look, I think we need to be a little careful here. If you all want to say "I told you so" to the people who thought up crazy conspiracy theories about Williams and Gibbs, I have no problem with that. But let's not go down this path of "you're not a real Redskins fan if you questioned the coaches' decisions" or "you're not a fan of the team if you thought Arrington should have been in there all along."

I've always maintained that if Arrington was healthy, I believed he should be playing, and I think he showed why in the San Fran game. That doesn't make me any less of a fan than any of the rest of you just because I questioned the coaches' decision. This is a forum where we are supposed to be free to discuss our opinions, and if my opinion is that I disagree with the coaches, then so be it. That has nothing to do with my loyalty to the Redskins.

Again, I can't speak for everyone because I'd like to distance myself from some people who said some pretty crazy (in my opinion) things about the coaches and Arrington, but let's not start this "you're a fan of the player, not the team" crap. Hindsight is always 20/20 and some of you jumping on the "I told you so" bandwagon now were some of the first people to take exception to the "I told you so's" coming from those supporting the decision to play Arrington after the San Fran game.

I'm just trying to head this off now before it gets out of control again. We are ALL entitled to our opinions. Period.

Now let's focus our collective energies on the Eagles.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

Look, I think we need to be a little careful here. If you all want to say "I told you so" to the people who thought up crazy conspiracy theories about Williams and Gibbs, I have no problem with that. But let's not go down this path of "you're not a real Redskins fan if you questioned the coaches' decisions" or "you're not a fan of the team if you thought Arrington should have been in there all along."

I've always maintained that if Arrington was healthy, I believed he should be playing, and I think he showed why in the San Fran game. That doesn't make me any less of a fan than any of the rest of you just because I questioned the coaches' decision. This is a forum where we are supposed to be free to discuss our opinions, and if my opinion is that I disagree with the coaches, then so be it. That has nothing to do with my loyalty to the Redskins.

Again, I can't speak for everyone because I'd like to distance myself from some people who said some pretty crazy (in my opinion) things about the coaches and Arrington, but let's not start this "you're a fan of the player, not the team" crap. Hindsight is always 20/20 and some of you jumping on the "I told you so" bandwagon now were some of the first people to take exception to the "I told you so's" coming from those supporting the decision to play Arrington after the San Fran game.

I'm just trying to head this off now before it gets out of control again. We are ALL entitled to our opinions. Period.

Now let's focus our collective energies on the Eagles.

Agreeden!
I know my issue isn't with the people who thought he should be playing. My issue is with people who thought he should be playing simply because they liked him basically and wouldn't admit that they couldn't evaluate the situation without emotion. Those are the ones who seemingly cared more about one player than the entire team. They may be "real" fans but they're not real good fans. The kind that most sports organizations can live without if they want a truely rabid fan contingent. I don't remember you being one of this group. So while i might say "I told you so" I won't question your fandom. Others aren't so lucky.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

Look, I think we need to be a little careful here. If you all want to say "I told you so" to the people who thought up crazy conspiracy theories about Williams and Gibbs, I have no problem with that. But let's not go down this path of "you're not a real Redskins fan if you questioned the coaches' decisions" or "you're not a fan of the team if you thought Arrington should have been in there all along."

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.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[MTK]

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.

[onsidekick]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.