Skins going after Albert Haynesworth?

spudstr04 · Post by **spudstr04** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:17 pm

I despise Peter King, but he has inside information about Dan Snyder meeting with Haynesworth's agent.

SI.com's Peter King believes that free agent Albert Haynesworth has overrated his market value.

The Falcons and Lions have already all but pulled out of the running and King suggests that only Redskins owner Dan Snyder will pony up. Snyder had dinner with Haynesworth's agent over the weekend. King says Haynesworth's falling stock stems from his injuries, motor, age, and obvious price tag.

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playernews.aspx?sport=NFL

There's no long line waiting to pry Albert Haynesworth from the Titans.

In fact, Washington might be the logical landing spot. Hmmmm. I wonder why Redskins owner Dan Snyder was having dinner with the agent for Haynesworth, Chad Speck, at Morton's here Saturday night. I'm sure they were just talking about how it was colder here than at the Arctic Circle. But I kept asking all weekend: "Who wants Haynesworth -- or, more appropriately, who's going to pony up for him?'' And I got the old "it only takes one'' answer a few times. But one coach told me the smartest thing, and this was a coach who has some interest in getting Haynesworth at the right price, which is about half of what Haynesworth is hoping to get. "Everybody I've asked this weekend says, 'We're out of that,' or 'I don't think you'll see us involved in Haynesworth.' ''

Sad, really, because he's a great football player, an impactful player who can change a game from the interior defensive line spot. The downer stuff about Haynesworth:

• He's never played a full season. He's started three, 11, 10, 14, 10, 12 and 14 in his seven seasons.

• He's never played more than 65 percent of the Titans' defensive snaps in a season. You might say a Nnamdi Asomugha is tremendously overpaid at $15-million a year (much more on him later in the column), but Asomugha or a quarterback is going to play 95 percent of his unit's plays in the course of a year, barring injury. Even if healthy, Haynesworth's going to come off the field a third of the time, minimum. So do you want to pay quarterback money to a player who never touches the ball and plays two-thirds of the snaps a franchise quarterback plays? It makes no sense.

• He's got a reputation for coasting on some plays.

• He'll be 28 on opening day. You want to pay a 335-pound guy who's never started more than 14 games and is entering his eighth year $13 million or $15 million a year? Good luck.

In the end, my guess is Snyder will pay up and grab him. He's the kind of trophy player Snyder would love to have, and the kind of player, if healthy, who will really help the Redskins close the gap on the Giants in the NFC East.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/02/22/mmqb/index.html?eref=si_nfl

I also heard that the Titans are preparing to offer him more. It looks like there's not a lot of teams that want him. His injury past and his lack of work ethic in the past could be reason to just skip on him. He reminds me of Julius Peppers, only playing great in contract years.

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:43 pm

They can have him. I would like to see Washington pass on the savings to the staff and give them their jobs back or use the cap money in the 20 other spots we need improvement at.

vwoodzpusha · Post by **vwoodzpusha** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:07 pm

I think this would be an awful move for us. I know we need some help in the middle but the amount of money that Haynesworth is going to get is going to kill us cap-wise.

Gibbs4Life · Post by **Gibbs4Life** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:23 pm

Haynesworth having an indian on his helmet only helps us

Cap Shmap, We need a pass rush and a run stuffer.

With haynesworth and montgomery in the middle the ends should get more sacks.

VetSkinsFan · Post by **VetSkinsFan** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:38 pm

Gibbs4Life wrote:Haynesworth having an indian on his helmet only helps us

Cap Shmap, We need a pass rush and a run stuffer.

With haynesworth and montgomery in the middle the ends should get more sacks.

Montgomery is nothing more than a serviceable rotation guy. He's NOT made an impact when on the field. The only two guys we can say that with (and one is with reservation) is

when healthy

, Griffin and Daniels are noticeable.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:45 pm

VetSkinsFan wrote:The only two guys we can say that with (and one is with reservation) is
when healthy
, Griffin and Daniels are noticeable.

Which is hardly ever...

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:08 pm

You lost me at

Peter King

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:47 pm

VetSkinsFan wrote:
Gibbs4Life wrote:Haynesworth having an indian on his helmet only helps us

Cap Shmap, We need a pass rush and a run stuffer.

With haynesworth and montgomery in the middle the ends should get more sacks.

Montgomery is nothing more than a serviceable rotation guy. He's NOT made an impact when on the field. The only two guys we can say that with (and one is with reservation) is
when healthy
, Griffin and Daniels are noticeable.

I would say that even when healthy Griffin isn't even all that noticeable anymore. A year or two ago, yes, but not anymore.

fleetus · Post by **fleetus** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:58 pm

Haynesworth, at the price he will command, is another over-priced, work ethic challenged, injury-prone, prima donna that is EXACTLY what we DON'T need. We've been down this road before. We need younger, cheaper not older, over-priced.

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:02 pm

.....we are very experienced in over paying guys who are on the downside of their careers.

I think a quote is perfect for this situation "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

andyjens89 · Post by **andyjens89** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:03 pm

We need Haynesworth to stomp some more Dallas players :twisted:

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:07 pm

fleetus wrote:Haynesworth, at the price he will command, is another over-priced, work ethic challenged, injury-prone, prima donna that is EXACTLY what we DON'T need. We've been down this road before. We need younger, cheaper not older, over-priced.

Just out of curiosity....where do you suggest that we find a younger, cheaper DT that can collapse the pocket? I'm all for bringing in someone other than Haynesworth because he is going to cost too much money, but at the same time I'd like to hear people actually point out some realistic alternative options. DT is a weak position in this year's draft so unless Raji falls to us at 13 I think it's going to be very difficult to improve out dline this off-season.

HEROHAMO · Post by **HEROHAMO** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:45 pm

If we had a competent Front office then I would agree with all of you.

But, the fact remains that we do not! Seriously Hello! Have you guys not been watching the past ten years?

It does not surprise me at all if we go after Haynesworth. Do I think it is a bad idea?

Well can anyone here fix the problem at the defensive tackle spot? Seriously can anyone on this planet remember the last time the Redskins have had a serious defensive tackle of Haynesworths caliber? It has been twenty years or so. Twenty freakin years since we have had any kind of defensive line. Defensive ends or defensive tackles!

Look at the draft this year thin at defensive tackle. Look at the free agent list also a big drop off after Haynesworth. Now look at the prospects at defensive tackle in the draft. Now remember who our GM is. Do you really have faith in Vinny C?

For me he has to prove it. So far I do not have faith in Vinny or Snyder. But if they sign Haynesworth I would not mind one bit. Defensive tackle is a need that has been a need for oh so long now. Patch the hole up and move on to the next hole that needs fixing.

So please save me all the salary cap talk. We have been needing a stinking defensive tackle for twenty plus years now. Its about time to bring a beast in. Case closed.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:54 pm

Seriously can anyone on this planet remember the last time the Redskins have had a serious defensive tackle of Haynesworths caliber? It has been twenty years or so.

Point taken...

But, there are a few of us whom have vivid memories of Dave Butz making a living 3 yards behind the center. :wink:

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:40 pm

CanesSkins26 wrote:
fleetus wrote:Haynesworth, at the price he will command, is another over-priced, work ethic challenged, injury-prone, prima donna that is EXACTLY what we DON'T need. We've been down this road before. We need younger, cheaper not older, over-priced.

Just out of curiosity....where do you suggest that we find a younger, cheaper DT that can collapse the pocket? I'm all for bringing in someone other than Haynesworth because he is going to cost too much money, but at the same time I'd like to hear people actually point out some realistic alternative options. DT is a weak position in this year's draft so unless Raji falls to us at 13 I think it's going to be very difficult to improve out dline this off-season.

I actually agree there Canes. :shock:

Just about everyone here has agreed that the DE's, secondary and the defense as a whole would benefit immensely from a stud DT and a stronger push from the middle of the d-line.

I still believe that part of the problem regarding a lack of a pass rush from the d-line is related in part to the scheme design of containment the players spoke about a few months ago. Nevertheless, we know a DT is needed.

Yes, we hope the FO has learned from the past. I believe part of the past problems with awarding free agents with huge contracts is that once the player got paid, they seemed to slack off and not give full effort. If they decided to get Haynesworth, I think an incentive-laden contract would make far more sense and would significantly lower the overall risk of signing him. Perhaps an incentive-laden contract based on number of games played and total number of sacks... or something like that. If they did a contract like that, I wouldn't have a problem with signing the guy. If he remained healthy and motivated for his contract, he would be a huge upgrade for our defense.

PAPDOG67 · Post by **PAPDOG67** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:32 pm

Signing Haynesworth would be another mistake. The guy is 28 years old already, well over 300 lbs. and has never played a full season in NFL career. That doesn't bode well for his future production. We have more pressing needs to fill. I understand people's frustration with the lack of pass rush lately, but we still had a top 5 defense last season.

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:42 pm

SkinsFreak wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:
fleetus wrote:Haynesworth, at the price he will command, is another over-priced, work ethic challenged, injury-prone, prima donna that is EXACTLY what we DON'T need. We've been down this road before. We need younger, cheaper not older, over-priced.

Just out of curiosity....where do you suggest that we find a younger, cheaper DT that can collapse the pocket? I'm all for bringing in someone other than Haynesworth because he is going to cost too much money, but at the same time I'd like to hear people actually point out some realistic alternative options. DT is a weak position in this year's draft so unless Raji falls to us at 13 I think it's going to be very difficult to improve out dline this off-season.

I actually agree there Canes.

Just about everyone here has agreed that the DE's, secondary and the defense as a whole would benefit immensely from a stud DT and a stronger push from the middle of the d-line.

I still believe that part of the problem regarding a lack of a pass rush from the d-line is related in part to the scheme design of containment the players spoke about a few months ago. Nevertheless, we know a DT is needed.

Yes, we hope the FO has learned from the past. I believe part of the past problems with awarding free agents with huge contracts is that once the player got paid, they seemed to slack off and not give full effort. If they decided to get Haynesworth, I think an incentive-laden contract would make far more sense and would significantly lower the overall risk of signing him. Perhaps an incentive-laden contract based on number of games played and total number of sacks... or something like that. If they did a contract like that, I wouldn't have a problem with signing the guy. If he remained healthy and motivated for his contract, he would be a huge upgrade for our defense.

Lot of ifs there ... this is one of the things the front office is going to have to come to grips with, not every need can be addressed. It's going to take some recognition that making do with less-than-ideal players will have to suffice for now if they are serious about establishing a long-term and viable core. Making A signing to address A need that hinders their ability to add depth is the wrong approach.

HEROHAMO · Post by **HEROHAMO** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:11 am

Countertrey wrote:
Seriously can anyone on this planet remember the last time the Redskins have had a serious defensive tackle of Haynesworths caliber? It has been twenty years or so.

Point taken...

But, there are a few of us whom have vivid memories of Dave Butz making a living 3 yards behind the center.

Oh yes, there was once a time when the Redskins front lines were the best in the league. Still hoping this front office can turn this thing around.

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:46 am

We have to play our cards right. I think that if we don't, we are only going to regress. If we don't improve, I don't see us getting to 8-8 next year. We play the AFC West next season and thats a guaranteed 2 losses in SD and Denver. That just leaves Oakland and KC. And I wouldn't count those out either.

Don't break the bank on one guy. Also, don't throw money away at an unproven guy at the #13. Give some of that money to a FA who is proven. I'm hearing about Jovan Haye out of TB. He's the 2nd rated UFA out there. But, Cedric Golston is the #5 and knows our defense. Maybe you bring him back. I'm not big on Montgomery. He just never seemed to work at it like Golston did. I also wouldn't mind to see us turn D. Evans inside and see what he can do.

I think with a good rotation and good LB'r play, we could be really good. See Philly's line. I love their guys.

Gibbs4Life · Post by **Gibbs4Life** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:24 am

This is reason enough to make Albert a Redskin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW4XUpN9bPQ

fleetus · Post by **fleetus** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:10 am

In a perfect world we'd have a behemoth DT and an edge rushing DE, but we don't. Yet, still our defense plays well. It's our offense, namely pass protection that needs help. RT is the most glaring weakness, but LG isn't far behind. With Raji, Orakpo, Tyson Jackson and others possibly available at #13, the chances of landing a solid OT with that pick is questionable. So we need to concentrate our free agency on O-line first and keep an eye out for any lower priced, good value deals for defensive free agents. Sometimes later in free agency, after the top few players at a position are gone, there are a couple of good players still looking for a home. That's where we might add some DT, DE, LB and CB depth.[/list]

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:25 am

Fios wrote:Lot of ifs there ... this is one of the things the front office is going to have to come to grips with, not every need can be addressed. It's going to take some recognition that making do with less-than-ideal players will have to suffice for now if they are serious about establishing a long-term and viable core. Making A signing to address A need that hinders their ability to add depth is the wrong approach.

Agreed 100%. I still believe they won't sign Hayneworth, just looks like due diligence. See what the guy wants and propose an incentive-based contract to see what response you get from his agent.

Again, a change is scheme design, even with the same players, may, in itself, produce better results. The scheme philosophy of containment limited a pass rush, but it was by design. Even though coaches rarely discuss their schemes, Zorn did touch on this yesterday...

Washington Times wrote:Zorn said the Redskins' sack (24) and interception (13) totals will improve but defended the lack of pressure on first and second downs by pointing out the defense was eighth against the run.

"We had good athletes and our scheme was very run-limiting," he said. "It's not cautious, but it's disciplined. ... We would all like a much stronger pass rush on third down, and we're working on improving that. We're not satisfied with the lack of sacks and the lack of interceptions. We're going to get better in those two areas."

As a side note, Zorn also said... In addition to having high expectations for receivers Devin Thomas and Malcolm Kelly, Zorn plans to use tight end Fred Davis dramatically more this year. "We're glad we [drafted Davis]," Zorn said. "He's a tremendous athlete. He's going to help this football team. ... It was an excellent pick."

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:45 pm

I'm willing to give Zorn the benefit of the doubt on evaluating our '08 draft picks a year later. But this does mean that we're going to have to start seeing production from them in 2009, or else what does that say about our FO / coaches?

The fact that ARE seems so entrenched is what makes me nervous about this.

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:50 pm

Irn-Bru wrote:I'm willing to give Zorn the benefit of the doubt on evaluating our '08 draft picks a year later. But this does mean that we're going to have to start seeing production from them in 2009, or else what does that say about our FO / coaches?

The fact that ARE seems so entrenched is what makes me nervous about this.

That's a good point. There is all this talk about Thomas, Kelly, and Davis being more involved, but where are all of these catches going to come from? Moss and Cool

ey are both going to get their number of catches and for whatever reason the Skins seem hell-bent on keeping ARE. Zorn has even talked about getting ARE more catches so I'm just wondering how exactly all of these guys are going to play a big role.

langleyparkjoe · Post by **langleyparkjoe** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:05 pm

frankcal20 wrote:.....we are very experienced in over paying guys who are on the downside of their careers.

I think a quote is perfect for this situation "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

what if we're the sames ones.. over and over and over and over..LOL