the pinjockey 0 Report post Posted December 27, 2003 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor..._len&id=1694367 8 yrs/60 mil? I don't see every Redskins game, but being an Eagles fan I have watched quite a few games. And I don't remember ever (save for one or two times at most) coming away thinking that Lavar Arrington was anything more than a good LB with potential. But this is cap room that the Skins waste so it makes me feel pretty good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HarleyQuinn 0 Report post Posted December 27, 2003 I consider him another Warren Sapp, a player given blow jobs despite being IMO highly overrated. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teke184 0 Report post Posted December 27, 2003 More proof that the Saints got the better end of the Ricky Williams trade in the 1998 draft... They got Williams for a few years and a 1st round pick from Miami when they traded him, while Washington got an overrated linebacker and a serious salary cap problem. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bored 0 Report post Posted December 27, 2003 Actually when you add in the $20 million signing bonus it's an $80 million deal. Happiest guy in the world right next to Arrington? 49ers' free agent outside linebacker Julian Peterson. His price just went waaaaaaay up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the pinjockey 0 Report post Posted December 27, 2003 Actually the deal includes the 20 million signing bonus. But they are going to get ass rammed on the back end of this deal. They are only paying him a small base salary the next two years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted December 27, 2003 With non-guaranteed contracts, what's the point? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the pinjockey 0 Report post Posted December 27, 2003 What's the point for who? Players: Get the guaranteed signing bonus money that you can only get in a long term deal Owners: Sign the guys to long term deals so they end up cheap if they pan out Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gert T 0 Report post Posted December 27, 2003 Maybe LaVar can sign with the NFL's merchandising department now, since he's overpaid for a LB, his name and likeness can be "underpaid". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the pinjockey 0 Report post Posted December 27, 2003 I would like to see how his agent explained this deal to him. God knows if he can't learn defensive schemes, contracts must be like nuclear physics. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted December 27, 2003 Lavar is an animal. Ye the figures are high, but who isn't really overpaid these days right? He is the cornerstone of the Redskins Defense and will be for the rest of his career now. I watch every Skins game and can tell you Lavar is THAT good. When a team has to modify their offense in order to stay away from you on the field, you are THAT good. When teams throw a red shirt on a guy in practice and use him as "lavar" in order to try and know at ALL TIMES where he is on defense, you are THAT GOOD. Now I am not delusional, he is NO RAY LEWIS, but Lavar is probably the second best LB in the league. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted December 27, 2003 Lavar is similiar to LT, in the sense they can make the big plays, but there's alot of times there completley out of position and are hurting the defense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted December 27, 2003 Lavar is similiar to LT, in the sense they can make the big plays, but there's alot of times there completley out of position and are hurting the defense. Well I agree he can be out of position, however I'd say 4 different Defensive coordinators in 4 years can kind of make it hard to learn your respective system. Also with a shitty D-line, it puts way more burden on the LB core to play the run, rather then focus on making big plays and/or getting to the QB. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted December 27, 2003 It's odd that he gets that deal now considering he's had a pretty average season thus far. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted December 27, 2003 It's odd that he gets that deal now considering he's had a pretty average season thus far. Actually I think he has had a pretty solid year. 112 tackles, 6 sacks. However this is the first year of his career that he has lacked that ONE HUGE HIGHLIGHT REEL PLAY. He has come close to getting some INTs that would he would have taken to the house, but he dropped them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MARTYEWR 0 Report post Posted December 29, 2003 (edited) I don't think the deal's that bad for either side. The Redskins actually HELPED their cap problem with this. They signed Arrington to an 8-year, $60-million deal, when he was going to get $20-million the next two years. That helps them. However, with the $20-million bonus, Arrington gets basically the same amount he was going to get anyway. As far as I know, Arrington wasn't asking for any raises; he just wants stability in the overall coaching schemes and direction, something that hasn't happened too much in Washington since Dan Snyder bought the team. Edited December 29, 2003 by MARTYEWR Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted December 29, 2003 Zach Thomas is worth more than Arrington, but Arrington is still good. But at this money? Hell no. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the pinjockey 0 Report post Posted December 29, 2003 It helps their cap for the next two years, but they are going to have to make up for that at some point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
