Haynesworth is Behaving Selfishly

A good piece from Matt Williamson (a Scouts Inc guy) in looking at the Redskins without Haynesworth from a football standpoint.

The Big Question: Replacing Haynesworth - NFC East Blog - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/14178/the-big-question-replacing-haynesworth)

I still don't understand why would fans want AH out of here.

I can't speak for everyone, but if I beleived that Haynesworth was motivated to do everything possible to be the best player possible in this new scheme and would give 100% to doing whatever the coaches asked him to do, there's no way i'd even consider getting rid of him. He's just to dominant when he wants to be. However, a number of factors make me believe that we won't be getting much effort from Haynesworth and he'll be a problem child as long as he's here. If we can get good value for him, we should trade him. If not, we just have to hope he decides at some point to commit 100% to his new role.

Yes, I believe that AH is selfish. I also believe that anyone who thinks we should dump him is making a big mistake.

It is much more important to me that he is a great football player than it is that he is, IMO, a poor teammate. Not since we had Dave Butz have we had anyone close to AH in his ability to stuff the run. Plus, he can get after the QB, too. The guy is a beast. Our team is much better with him than it would be without him.

IMO, there is no way that we could get anywhere near a fair return if he were to be traded. So, trading him is out of the question.

It wasn't my intent to suggest that, once he arrives, he won't put out a good effort and make a significant contribution to the team. I think he will. I just don't like his "me first" attitude and his inflexibility in regard to attending the minicamps.

This is what I don't understand, I know on defense each person has a specific job, ie; DT/NT is supposed to take on blockers and fill gaps on run plays. What I don't get is although he might be used as a NT does he really think he would not be trying to go after the QB? It would be his job to collapse the pocket while the DE's were circling around forcing the QB to step up. I'd almost imagine he might even get more tackles, sacks and forced fumbles vs. the DE's. Plus if we stuck him at DE and the QB rolls out it's not like he would be able to keep up with the QB anyway... he's too big.

but, in any event, I really don't give 2 cents that he's not here. It's voluntary. I can remember growing up and maybe only 10 player out of 80 would show up for voluntary work outs. The rest were enjoying their vacation. No one threw a fit. The funny part is its like seeing a person driving down the 65mph highway at 65 mph and everyone else is doing 75-80mph and their mad at the driver going the speed limit. AH is doing what he is allowed to do. He is doing what the NFLPA fought for way back when, when the players didn't want the owners keeping them at the facility year around. Until the agreement changes no one can fault AH for doing what he is allowed to do.

My biggest concern with the defense is switching Lorenzo Alexander to Jeremy Jarmon to LB (and Andre Carter), those could pan out but it's a bit of a risk at this point
yep.. I like Lorenzo but I don't know about him at LB.. Jarmon might be alright but will probably take some time..

I can't speak for everyone, but if I beleived that Haynesworth was motivated to do everything possible to be the best player possible in this new scheme and would give 100% to doing whatever the coaches asked him to do, there's no way i'd even consider getting rid of him. He's just to dominant when he wants to be. However, a number of factors make me believe that we won't be getting much effort from Haynesworth and he'll be a problem child as long as he's here. If we can get good value for him, we should trade him. If not, we just have to hope he decides at some point to commit 100% to his new role.
I love your insight. You'll probably replace Smoot as the insider eventually.

This is what I don't understand, I know on defense each person has a specific job, ie; DT/NT is supposed to take on blockers and fill gaps on run plays. What I don't get is although he might be used as a NT does he really think he would not be trying to go after the QB? It would be his job to collapse the pocket while the DE's were circling around forcing the QB to step up. I'd almost imagine he might even get more tackles, sacks and forced fumbles vs. the DE's. Plus if we stuck him at DE and the QB rolls out it's not like he would be able to keep up with the QB anyway... he's too big.

but, in any event, I really don't give 2 cents that he's not here. It's voluntary. I can remember growing up and maybe only 10 player out of 80 would show up for voluntary work outs. The rest were enjoying their vacation. No one threw a fit. The funny part is its like seeing a person driving down the 65mph highway at 65 mph and everyone else is doing 75-80mph and their mad at the driver going the speed limit. AH is doing what he is allowed to do. He is doing what the NFLPA fought for way back when, when the players didn't want the owners keeping them at the facility year around. Until the agreement changes no one can fault AH for doing what he is allowed to do.

He played a lot of DE last year on 3rd downs. He might be big but he can probably still run down most QBs.

He played a lot of DE last year on 3rd downs. He might be big but he can probably still run down most QBs.
Yeah, I was about to say, he can run down a QB scanning the field

I'm just not seeing where you're coming from. Their public statements have been kept to a minimum and I really don't see how they've embarrassed or humiliated AH at all by saying they're disappointed he's not there. If you ask me they could have handled this A LOT worse.

Anytime Allen or Shanhan are asked about it, they give a pretty generic response. He's not here, we wish he was, but we've had good talks with him, he'll be here for the mandatory stuff, etc.

I would be willing to bet the discussions behind closed doors haven't been as good natured.

We can agree to disagree, I am not trying to make a big big deal out of this.
It is not so much about AH and this particular situation, it is more about the yearly ritual of certain coaches bitching in the press about players not attending voluntary events. Either it is voluntary or it is mandatory. You can not have it both ways.
Talk about potentially creating a hostile work environment. The NFL and NFLPA really need to visit this issue.
All I know is if my boss made a statement to the press and used the word disappointed when talking about me and attending a voluntary work event, I would not be happy about it and I would not respect for my boss for doing it in such a public way.

We can agree to disagree, I am not trying to make a big big deal out of this.
It is not so much about AH and this particular situation, it is more about the yearly ritual of certain coaches bitching in the press about players not attending voluntary events. Either it is voluntary or it is mandatory. You can not have it both ways.
Talk about potentially creating a hostile work environment. The NFL and NFLPA really need to visit this issue.
All I know is if my boss made a statement to the press and used the word disappointed when talking about me and attending a voluntary work event, I would not be happy about it and I would not respect for my boss for doing it in such a public way.

I agree the voluntary vs. mandatory thing creates sticky situations, but on the flipside if I'm AH and I just raked in $40M from my employer and 99% of my teammates are working hard at Redskins Park, voluntary or not it might be a good idea to play the good soldier routine and show up... out of respect for your employer and teammates.

Hey, where are the two dudes that wanted to start the "Leave Danny Boy" banner, or whatever it was called.

They could start a "I hate Haynesworth" banner:)