Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10
I do agree, that's a significant cost. But did we read anything this whole offseason indicating that Albert was still going to pout for us this year like he did last year? Or did we just assume he would.
I didn't see anything. I read that he was in much better shape (which he appears to be if you see photos of him as a Patriot). I think there's a decent chance he was planning to come this year and at least partially move on.
I think the transition from malcontent to player who's finally falling in line was happening faster that we all think. There's no evidence to suggest that wasn't the case, just a bunch of assumptions.
But hey like I said, in the end if Shanahan puts together a good defense and we improve, then Albert's cap space will have been put to good use, and you can't fault the decision. So you're right, to be fair I can't declare myself right on this. Shanahan can render the argument moot with a successful season, and I definitely hope that happens.
|
Let's talk assumptions here. Was it reasonable to assume that AH would continue to be a big ass distraction?
First, AH hated Shanahan - that is well documented and he has not take one inch of it back. He made absolutely nothing in the way of concillatory gestures to the team, coach, fans. If he had (i.e "I was being a little intransigent last year, I may have been wrong in my approach"), we most certainly would have heard about it. Barring a true, come-to-Jesus moment, the AH/MS relationship was far to gone to be fixed given the personalities involved.
In light of this damaged relationship, I would suggest that unless AH
completely submitted to the Shanny way, he would have been a distraction b/c media, fans, etc. would be looking for friction to blow out of proportion - every play would have been analyzed to determine if AH was truly playing in line. Given how bad things got, it was not going to be a "we kissed, made up and are now bestest pals" turnaround. The circus would have continued even if AH played well ("Now that AH is playing well on 3rd downs, do you see an expanded role for him? Why now? Why not?, etc.").
Even if you don't accept that AH playing well was not a necessary cure to the problem, is it reasonable to assume AH had changed the attitudes that contributed to the problem? I suggest no.
AH reporting to camp is not a concillatory gesture, it is merely minimal compliance and in keeping with his actions last year. He never - to my knowledge - said "I am not going to do that". He just gave half assed attempts when put in situations he didn't like. Unless there is something to suggest he changed his ways, going to camp is nothing more than a continuation of his passive-aggressive compliance.
Last year, AH's attitudes and actions contributed to the circus that was AH. While never refusing a "direct order", Haynesworth made comments, took actions and demonstrated in every possible way that Albert was going to do it Albert's way or no way. To date, AH has done
nothing to disavow his behavior from last year.
In light of his prior year's affirmative actions and his failure to disclaim those actions and attitudes, the reasonable assumption is not that he had been reached and had a professional epiphany. Rather, the more reasonable assumption is that AH intended to continue being Albert and create the same distractions he did last year.
Dear God, did I just write all that on Fatal Bert? Damn you Schneed, you made my ham sandwich taste bad.