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

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.

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?

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?

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

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?
Fantastic post! Sums my thoughts up very nicely.

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?

Thank you. Excellent post.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?


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.

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.

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...