Redskins and Titans talking trade again on Albert Haynesworth

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Apparently he's not committed to practicing. Bottom line is: he doesn't work hard. What kind of message would it send to the others who work harder, if they are benched in favor of AH?

In any case, he's wants to shoot gaps, not tie up blockers, and 3-4 linemen need to tie up blockers.

I'll respond to all of these i guess. he is committed. We can argue this point back and forth. But he was putting in extra time with the coaches after practice learning the defense. He was putting in extra time in film. He was, according to the players, embrasing the DE postion and doing his best to learn it. I am guessing he was doing what they were asking him to do, as far as shooting the gaps because he did it over and over and over again. In my opinion, if that was wrong, he would have been pulled out rather quickly and not put back on the field. If you argue that point, then it goes against all the arguements of Shanny busting AH ass everytime he screws up.

[Bushead]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

I am not saying what AH is right, at all believe me. I was one of the ship his ass out, or bench him for the rest of the contract. But, i just think this has gone way too damn far. I just think now its about making him look bad than anything else. I understand its HIS team, and I like shanny, but this seems to be more personal than anything related to his "football" ability.

Obviously, we have no idea what is said between them, but do you remember that shot of the sideline when Haynesworth was 20 feet away from the defense? It looked liked all starters and some backups were surrounding haslett trying to understand things when they had time and Haynesworth wasn't anywhere near it.

Let's be honest: Haynesworth has not done ONE RIGHT THING to earn to get back on the field. I just don't think Shanahan has seen anything that says "let's put him out there."

Conditioning was going to be huge this year. We've heard some whispers how camp has been easy under Zorn and Shanahan wanted people to be in shape. Haynesworth messed around with that big time. Then, when he's playing against scrubs, a perfect time to dominate and show he's ready, he sluffs for the 45 out of 50 plays or whatever it was. How can you trust them?

It's like when Lavar Arrington wanted to just freelance instead of playing a defense. Great talent, but is it worth having that risk on the field? I would much rather have 11 people playing the defense as planned.

I ask you, what has Haynesworth done to deserve to play? Clinton Portis showed up, shut up, got in great shape. McNabb did the same thing. Hell, probably 95% of the team did everything that was asked of them.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

Honestly, I think Shannahan is just running this crap into the ground. According to the players, they stand behind AH and i think they are just getting tired of all this crap. He is the best D-lineman we have. I dont care what anyone says, he is our best. Just put the shit behind us, line him up at DE and let the dude play. all this stuff is just hurting the team. He is truly ready to play the DE position and go. why they keep messing with his head and putting him in on only 16 plays and doing the NT thing is absolutely mind boggling. Shanny's ego is that big?? This just needs to be squashed, play the man at DE and lets have a dominant D and let AH see how dominant he can be. And when he see's this maybe next year (if he's still here) wont be that big of a deal.

The man is a beast. So you have to stroke his ego a bit, but I think all this "it is my team, and you'll do what i tell you to" stuff from shanny is just getting old.

I don't know man, I kinda agree with you. He may be the best DE but if he does not fit our scheme then he looks avarage. I know a lot of people are saying he lets just get rid of him or take what we can get for him but I don't see it that way. Lets say you purchased an expensive car, after the period at which you can return it you realize it does not fit your life style, do you just give it away? No, you gunna want to try and get some type of return on the thing or atleast enough to pay off the loan.

The problem is AH looks bad as a NT and we keep saying he looks awsome and does anyone want him. The rest of the league is laughing at us knowing AH's fat body can only hold up for about 6-8 plays before he gets too tired. Also we are limited as to who to trade with cause of teams using the 3-4 scheme. We have to look at which teams are using the 4-3 and hope one of them makes a play or needs a DE, otherwise we should just take him out of the NT spot and put him in at DE with Daniels. Hope he plays good enough for other teams to get interested and offer more then a 4th or 5th rounder. At this point I'd rather sit him on the bench after he took DS's 21 mill vs. trading him for nothing.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

I'll respond to all of these i guess. he is committed. We can argue this point back and forth. But he was putting in extra time with the coaches after practice learning the defense. He was putting in extra time in film. He was, according to the players, embrasing the DE postion and doing his best to learn it. I am guessing he was doing what they were asking him to do, as far as shooting the gaps because he did it over and over and over again. In my opinion, if that was wrong, he would have been pulled out rather quickly and not put back on the field. If you argue that point, then it goes against all the arguements of Shanny busting AH ass everytime he screws up.

thats what im interested to know. unless haslett or someone else with knowledge of the scheme speaks out, i think the fact that they left him in there is circumstantial evidence that shooting gaps was his job description.

of course, general duties of a NT is to take on blockers and not try and shoot past the center and guard.

i really wanna know the answer.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by Bushead

Obviously, we have no idea what is said between them, but do you remember that shot of the sideline when Haynesworth was 20 feet away from the defense? It looked liked all starters and some backups were surrounding haslett trying to understand things when they had time and Haynesworth wasn't anywhere near it.

Let's be honest: Haynesworth has not done ONE RIGHT THING to earn to get back on the field. I just don't think Shanahan has seen anything that says "let's put him out there."

Conditioning was going to be huge this year. We've heard some whispers how camp has been easy under Zorn and Shanahan wanted people to be in shape. Haynesworth messed around with that big time. Then, when he's playing against scrubs, a perfect time to dominate and show he's ready, he sluffs for the 45 out of 50 plays or whatever it was. How can you trust them?

It's like when Lavar Arrington wanted to just freelance instead of playing a defense. Great talent, but is it worth having that risk on the field? I would much rather have 11 people playing the defense as planned.

I ask you, what has Haynesworth done to deserve to play? Clinton Portis showed up, shut up, got in great shape. McNabb did the same thing. Hell, probably 95% of the team did everything that was asked of them.

I dont think you have read/heard the latest. That little meeting was not D-Lineman. its was LB's and DB's. You can see other D-lineman sitting on the bench, not far from where AH was standing. portis even pointed that out in an interview yesterday. They are trying to single out everything AH does right now, which is expected. What has Haynesworth done to deserve to play? some people say nothing, some people say everything they have asked him to do. Work longer after practice, longer film study, extra work in the weight room. There were some whispers going around that said a lot of the players (bigger dudes) couldn't have done that test. The fact is, i think it was made up for him to fail. So they could hummiliate him a little bit each day. He doesn't trust them, they dont trust/like him. But, here is the deal. About 2 months before training camp started he was in contact with Haslet, learning the D, doing what he needed at home. They said he would play the DE spot, which he started to become excited about. Now he is playing NT, so I would probably be a little p'd too.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Bushead

Obviously, we have no idea what is said between them, but do you remember that shot of the sideline when Haynesworth was 20 feet away from the defense? It looked liked all starters and some backups were surrounding haslett trying to understand things when they had time and Haynesworth wasn't anywhere near it.

You mean the shot where Haslett was meeting with just the LBs and DBs and not the D-Lineman? (if you doubt this, listen to London Fletcher's interview in DC101)

I'm sorry, not trying to defend Haynesworth or anything, but some people need to stop biting the dangling carrot that the TMZ-line sports media puts on regarding this situation.

I'm not saying that everything is fine and dandy, or that Haynesworth is not to blame for this, etc., etc., etc., but keep in mind that whatever the situation is the media is going to make it seem to be 100 times worst.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

thats what im interested to know. unless haslett or someone else with knowledge of the scheme speaks out, i think the fact that they left him in there is circumstantial evidence that shooting gaps was his job description.

of course, general duties of a NT is to take on blockers and not try and shoot past the center and guard.

i really wanna know the answer.

In my limited knowledge, a good NT is hardly noticeable in the game, if you are talking about being a pass rusher. I think this is where the fit comes into questions regarding AH. People say, yeah he should play or learn to play or whatever, but you also have to put your feelings aside and look at this situation from a football standpoint. Haynesworth doesn't fit in our scheme period. We all see how terrible Laron Landry was playing FS last year, and I think this is a similar situation. Throw on top of that attitude issues and disagreements between a player and a team (which happen all the time).

Personally, putting AH in the 3-4 is like putting a big fat square peg into a round hole. Now the team needs to figure out how to trade him, and that won't happen until a team becomes desperate. Because right now, we don't see to have the upper hand in any trade negotiation.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

IMO Haynesworth would make a *terrible* 3-4 DE. He doesn't want to be responsible for 2 gaps. Period the end. Therefore, there is no place for him on a 3 man line. Funny thing is, there are plenty of 4 man fronts, but Haynesworth doesn't want to compromise at all. He's not willing to sacrifice *anything* for the team. A 3-4 lineman must be selfless. That is beyond Haynesworth's capabilities.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

IMO Haynesworth would make a *terrible* 3-4 DE. He doesn't want to be responsible for 2 gaps. Period the end. Therefore, there is no place for him on a 3 man line. Funny thing is, there are plenty of 4 man fronts, but Haynesworth doesn't want to compromise at all. He's not willing to sacrifice *anything* for the team. A 3-4 lineman must be selfless. That is beyond Haynesworth's capabilities.

See this is where I wish people think about scheme rather than put their feelings about the guy into the discussion. Yes, we know he's a shithead, a big baby, a pouty fat ass that doesn't get with the program. But it's also a scheme issue.

Larron Landry was a terrible FS, and it was mostly because of scheme. Yes his personality may have some effect, but it's all about scheme. And maybe if AH put some effort into it, he'd be an average 3-4 D-lineman. If you read Tripp's analysis (if I understood correctly) both AH and Golston had issues in their gap responsibilities. AH doesn't fit our 3-4 scheme just as Landry didn't fit the FS position. And the team just needs to get rid of him.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

I'd like to clarify something here.

People think Shanahan wants Haynesworth to submit to him, and they claim that the ego of Mike Shanhan is the problem, and not Haynesworth.

I see it differently: Shanahan wants Haynesworth to submit to the TEAM.

Hell, I believe even Shanahan submits to the team. I don't see him as some dominatrix. I see him as somebody who is committed to the team above all else, and Haynesworth is a guy who is committed only to himself -- above all else. How in the world can anyone defend this behavior, and suggest that we'd be better off with such a player on the field?

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I'd like to clarify something here.

People think Shanahan wants Haynesworth to submit to him, and they claim that the ego of Mike Shanhan is the problem, and not Haynesworth.

I see it differently: Shanahan wants Haynesworth to submit to the TEAM.

Hell, I believe even Shanahan submits to the team. I don't see him as some dominatrix. I see him as somebody who is committed to the team above all else, and Haynesworth is a guy who is committed only to himself -- above all else. How in the world can anyone defend this behavior, and suggest that we'd be better off with such a player on the field?

I highly doubt that anyone here thinks that Haynesworth is not a problem. Everything could have been avoided if he did the right things. I just don't think he wouldn't be a good player period in the 3-4 scheme or worth the ton of money that stupid Vinny gave him.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I'd like to clarify something here.

People think Shanahan wants Haynesworth to submit to him, and they claim that the ego of Mike Shanhan is the problem, and not Haynesworth.

I see it differently: Shanahan wants Haynesworth to submit to the TEAM.

Hell, I believe even Shanahan submits to the team. I don't see him as some dominatrix. I see him as somebody who is committed to the team above all else, and Haynesworth is a guy who is committed only to himself -- above all else. How in the world can anyone defend this behavior, and suggest that we'd be better off with such a player on the field?

Because all the greats have ego issue's. I believe there was an interview with McNabb prior to season starting and he told the Philli news that he was not going to be a back up to no one, which is why he wanted to be traded. All the great players have this problem. Heck I'm waiting for Chad Johnson (Ocho...) to blow his top at some point either him or T.O. screaming that they aren't getting enough balls.

I agree with you though, I too see it as Shanahan trying to make Haynesworth think "team first" vs. "me first". All AH had to do was show up in the off season work out play the games, practice and let his play show he was not a fit in the system and most likely the team would have traded him. Instead AH sits out OTA's, grumbles about how the system is not for him, shows up and can't complete the test, practices half ass, gets mad cause he's not on the starting lineup, and to be honest ... maybe it is the scheme, maybe he's supposed to get up from his 3 point stance and grab the OL and just stand there taking up space in case a RB tries to squeek through. It's either that or he's not getting a good push from the get go. Which means he can't play NT.

I still say try him on the DE spot and if he doesn't work out sit him until another team is desperate enough to need him in their 4-3 scheme and we can get our value for him. The only thing giving him away accomplishes is the team doesn't have to see him in the locker room complaining. If he's such a dominating force to be reconed with then I would not just give him away. Especially after giving him 21 mill for which he refuses to return.

As far as I care he can ride the bench all yr. If I was Shanahan I'd have him warming the bench each game and when the media (you them, the ones keeping this saga going) asked about AH I'd say...."you need to ask him." AH thought he was swift in telling the media ... "go talk to the team about my injury." BS Haynesworth, you knew the team couldn't disclose your medical problems. If he really wanted the info out there he would have simply said what the problem was and let the media go to the coaching staff and confirm. Instead he tries to pull a fast one by not having to answer the media's question and the team not being allowed to tell the media keeps the spin going.

Nope, keep him on the bench. So each and every game the owner, GM, HC, players, and fans can all see what 21 mill bought us. Then trade him next yr, see how he likes not playing the whole yr.... maybe the 21 mill would be returned faster.

[tryfuhl]

Any of the Jets talk might as well be sealed, they just signed Howard Green, yep.. him

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

Any of the Jets talk might as well be sealed, they just signed Howard Green, yep.. him

Am I on your ignore list?

[skinsfan_nn]

Fat boy has a torn hang nail that might keep him out this week not like it means two shits...next problem would be blister on his thumb? The guys a world class BUM!

Updated: September 15, 2010, 5:14 PM ET
Albert Haynesworth hobbled by ankle

Associated Press

ASHBURN, Va. -- Albert Haynesworth was limited in practice Wednesday with an ankle injury, another setback for the Washington Redskins defensive lineman.


Haynesworth's participation was revealed when the team issued its injury report, long after practice had concluded. Coach Mike Shanahan did not mention Haynesworth's injury in his post-practice remarks.

Haynesworth saw limited action as a backup in the Redskins' season-opening win Sunday after months of disagreements with Shanahan over offseason workouts, practices and preseason playing time.

Safety Kareem Moore remains unable to practice with a sprained right knee. Backup linebacker Perry Riley was limited with a sprained right foot.