Haynesworth Still On The Trade Block?

[SKINFAN]

Everything will work out, Fat Al will not be going anywhere. He'll be here. No team would pay him as much as we would. He will play, and he will play hard. This "problem" now I think is nothing more than Fat Al checking to see how much he can get away with in this new system.

[CanesSkins26]

canes said:

I'd rather have Haynesworth. A lot of people are severely underestimating his ability.

Nobody is "underestimating his ability". They are simply not overestimating his motivation... nor his attitude...

We have no idea what may have been said behind closed doors when Haynesworth and coach sat and talked.

Shanahan is not one to cut off his nose to spite his face... and he has a history of giving second chances to individuals with significant character issues. Doesn't that cause you to wonder "what, then, would cause him to take such a hard line with Haynesworth????"

Shanahan also has a history of making very poor player personnel choices on the defensive side of the ball. I honestly don't care what Haynesworth said behind closed doors. He is still our best defensive player. The entire idea of him playing NT is absurd and I hope that he told the coaches that.

I actually think he would be a monster at NT as long as we move him around a bit. He has the strength and explosiveness that is perfect for doing more than "occupying" 2 to 3 defenders, but he could literally dominate them. If I were Albert, I would look at this as my opportunity to transform the NT position from an occupier to a dominator, and he has the talent to do it. The question is does he have the motor and conditioning to do it.

Knowing that he could be the key piece to the Skins version of the 3-4 and would potentially play all 3 line positions at some point, you would think he would have showed up to at least learn what we're planning to do with him.

I disagree completely. You don't make someone the highest paid defensive player in the league and then ask them to change positions and how they play. It's a bad football decision and it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Big Al is the best at what he does, so why ask him to change? All this is is coaching stubbornness. We have the personnel to be very successful in the 4-3, and instead of adjusting their system to the personnel, the staff is doing just the opposite.

[langleyparkjoe]

good point cs.. we've often complained about how we use our players outside of what they do.. interesting to have the same perspective with systems

[frankcal20]

- It's been stated many - many - times everywhere that we're not going to be a 3/4 team exclusively. That we will be a 4/3 team with 3/4 tendencies - which we did a lot of last season because of Orakpo. Haynesworth just doesn't want to be asked to do what typical DT's are asked to do - clog the middle, get pressure if you can, etc. He wants a DE to take out doubles to get out of his way so he can run down a QB, then lay on the ground like he's dead or something.

[SkinsJock]

I'm sorry but I thought we were paying this guy to play - I don't think that he's entitled to "feel good" about what he's being paid very well to do

things will change here and players will learn that they should play and let the coaches coach - if there is any doubt about that, I hope we make a great deal in the trade

no player is worth having if he does not want to play, very hard, AND on every down - Haynesworth has not exactly shown that


I want Haynesworth here but I want him here doing whatever Haslett and Shanahan think that he should do - NOT what Haynesworth thinks he should be doing to help this team

the first thing to do is to get yourself here and be a part of what is happening NOW

[fleetus]

canes said:

I'd rather have Haynesworth. A lot of people are severely underestimating his ability.

Nobody is "underestimating his ability". They are simply not overestimating his motivation... nor his attitude...

We have no idea what may have been said behind closed doors when Haynesworth and coach sat and talked.

Shanahan is not one to cut off his nose to spite his face... and he has a history of giving second chances to individuals with significant character issues. Doesn't that cause you to wonder "what, then, would cause him to take such a hard line with Haynesworth????"

Shanahan also has a history of making very poor player personnel choices on the defensive side of the ball. I honestly don't care what Haynesworth said behind closed doors. He is still our best defensive player. The entire idea of him playing NT is absurd and I hope that he told the coaches that.

I actually think he would be a monster at NT as long as we move him around a bit. He has the strength and explosiveness that is perfect for doing more than "occupying" 2 to 3 defenders, but he could literally dominate them. If I were Albert, I would look at this as my opportunity to transform the NT position from an occupier to a dominator, and he has the talent to do it. The question is does he have the motor and conditioning to do it.

Knowing that he could be the key piece to the Skins version of the 3-4 and would potentially play all 3 line positions at some point, you would think he would have showed up to at least learn what we're planning to do with him.

This is a big part of the problem. Haynesworth doesn't think of things from the positive perspective of "let me try it their way and see if it works for the team" Hyanesworth, judging by his actions over the years, is a guy who demands to play only when he isn't too tired. Demands he be played only a certain way. He'd be a perfect fit in Detroit or Oakland, IMO.

No offense, I think he is a great player, but better suited to be on a bad team where they will worship his dominance while losing games. I want to see the Redskins become a team (again) where there is unquestioned authority and everyone is there to put the team first. Unless he goes through some radical maturization, Haynesworth doesn't fit that mold.

I want more players like Fletcher. Guys like Troy Brown who played WR and DB for the Pats. Guys like Kevin Faulk, who takes a backseat to better RB's but shows up every week making key blocks and 3rd down catches. Guys like Brian Mitchell, who used to play anywhere, in any role he was asked. Guys like Lorenzo Alexander, who will block you as a 3rd tackle or wedge bust or tackle you on defense, maybe even try his hand at LB. Some of these guys may not make 40Mil, but everyone in the locker room sees the examples they set and it becomes contagious. I'm afraid the example Haynesworth sets, is quite often anti-team and negative.

[The Hogster]

Caneskins wrote:

I disagree completely. You don't make someone the highest paid defensive player in the league and then ask them to change positions and how they play. It's a bad football decision and it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Big Al is the best at what he does, so why ask him to change? All this is is coaching stubbornness. We have the personnel to be very successful in the 4-3, and instead of adjusting their system to the personnel, the staff is doing just the opposite.

Sure you do. Julius Peppers is a prime example. He just didn't whine about it. He actually wanted to try playing for a 3-4 team as an OLB. Why? Because his skills would allow him to do it. If the Bears ask him to play OLB, DE, or even MLB, he will do it because he's not a prick.

Haynesworth isn't even being asked to make a quantum leap. He's being asked to play some Defensive End and some Nose Tackle. Why?? Because his skills would allow him to do it. Period. Additionally, Kemo is coming off of an injury and can't take all the snaps there alone. So, we will need them to rotate snaps. This is the height of selfishness to say that. You're paid to play football. Sean Taylor played special teams and loved it, even when he was an All Pro Safety.

Haynesworth needs to give it a try. If he had a better attitude, and was willing to work harder, I'm sure the staff would utilize his talents by moving around. But, you can't say, "I'll move around but only where I want to move"

[riggofan]

I'm sorry but I thought we were paying this guy to play - I don't think that he's entitled to "feel good" about what he's being paid very well to do

Man I agree completely. I was just reading the NFC East Blog where Mosley says:

"And if the Redskins truly are "committed" to the former All-Pro defensive tackle, there will be some awkward moments at Redskins Park. "

I just don't get this stuff. Awkward moments? Haynesworth is going to be disgruntled because we've considered trading him? The Skins just cut that guy a check for $21 million. If they ask him to go mow the lawn tomorrow, he should go do it and smile.

Albert's a professional football player. Surely he is smart enough to know that if he doesn't fit in the new coaches' plans, he could find himself on the trading block. What does he care? He's going to get another $9 million from this team no matter what happens.

[CanesSkins26]

Caneskins wrote:

I disagree completely. You don't make someone the highest paid defensive player in the league and then ask them to change positions and how they play. It's a bad football decision and it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Big Al is the best at what he does, so why ask him to change? All this is is coaching stubbornness. We have the personnel to be very successful in the 4-3, and instead of adjusting their system to the personnel, the staff is doing just the opposite.

Sure you do. Julius Peppers is a prime example. He just didn't whine about it. He actually wanted to try playing for a 3-4 team as an OLB. Why? Because his skills would allow him to do it. If the Bears ask him to play OLB, DE, or even MLB, he will do it because he's not a prick.

Haynesworth isn't even being asked to make a quantum leap. He's being asked to play some Defensive End and some Nose Tackle. Why?? Because his skills would allow him to do it. Period. Additionally, Kemo is coming off of an injury and can't take all the snaps there alone. So, we will need them to rotate snaps. This is the height of selfishness to say that. You're paid to play football. Sean Taylor played special teams and loved it, even when he was an All Pro Safety.

Haynesworth needs to give it a try. If he had a better attitude, and was willing to work harder, I'm sure the staff would utilize his talents by moving around. But, you can't say, "I'll move around but only where I want to move"

That doesn't explain why the team is hell bent on trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by even contemplating using a 3-4. We have personnel perfectly suited for the 4-3, yet the coaches are stubbornly determined to switch to a 3-4, despite not having the personnel to do it. Haynesworth, Carter, and Orakpo all had very good seasons last year, yet the coaches want them to play differently. Less so with Orakpo, but more so with Carter and Haynesworth. It seems to me that they are making this type of switch because this is the general type of scheme that Haslett prefers to run, not because we have the personnel for it, which should be the main consideration.

[PulpExposure]

This is a big part of the problem. Haynesworth doesn't think of things from the positive perspective of "let me try it their way and see if it works for the team"

Haynesworth came here when we expressly told him that he'd be able to do what he did in Tennessee; i.e., attack. Last year, at least he was playing DT. This year? He gets to be a 3-4 gap control NT?

I'd be pissed, too, if I was brought in for one job, and given a totally different one.

In this day and age, they aren't.

Then don't call them voluntary.

[KazooSkinsFan]

That doesn't explain why the team is hell bent on trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by even contemplating using a 3-4. We have personnel perfectly suited for the 4-3, yet the coaches are stubbornly determined to switch to a 3-4, despite not having the personnel to do it

You're just making it up as you go. We haven't played a snap and all they said is they're looking at it and they are considering hybrids, yet they are already "stubborn" and you refuse them permission to even "contemplate" it. This statement is pathetic, there's no other way to describe it.

[CanesSkins26]

That doesn't explain why the team is hell bent on trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by even contemplating using a 3-4. We have personnel perfectly suited for the 4-3, yet the coaches are stubbornly determined to switch to a 3-4, despite not having the personnel to do it

You're just making it up as you go. We haven't played a snap and all they said is they're looking at it and they are considering hybrids, yet they are already "stubborn" and you refuse them permission to even "contemplate" it. This statement is pathetic, there's no other way to describe it.

If they aren't going to transition to a 3-4 then what's the issue with Haynesworth?

[fleetus]

Caneskins wrote:

I disagree completely. You don't make someone the highest paid defensive player in the league and then ask them to change positions and how they play. It's a bad football decision and it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Big Al is the best at what he does, so why ask him to change? All this is is coaching stubbornness. We have the personnel to be very successful in the 4-3, and instead of adjusting their system to the personnel, the staff is doing just the opposite.

Sure you do. Julius Peppers is a prime example. He just didn't whine about it. He actually wanted to try playing for a 3-4 team as an OLB. Why? Because his skills would allow him to do it. If the Bears ask him to play OLB, DE, or even MLB, he will do it because he's not a prick.

Haynesworth isn't even being asked to make a quantum leap. He's being asked to play some Defensive End and some Nose Tackle. Why?? Because his skills would allow him to do it. Period. Additionally, Kemo is coming off of an injury and can't take all the snaps there alone. So, we will need them to rotate snaps. This is the height of selfishness to say that. You're paid to play football. Sean Taylor played special teams and loved it, even when he was an All Pro Safety.

Haynesworth needs to give it a try. If he had a better attitude, and was willing to work harder, I'm sure the staff would utilize his talents by moving around. But, you can't say, "I'll move around but only where I want to move"

That doesn't explain why the team is hell bent on trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by even contemplating using a 3-4. We have personnel perfectly suited for the 4-3, yet the coaches are stubbornly determined to switch to a 3-4, despite not having the personnel to do it. Haynesworth, Carter, and Orakpo all had very good seasons last year, yet the coaches want them to play differently. Less so with Orakpo, but more so with Carter and Haynesworth. It seems to me that they are making this type of switch because this is the general type of scheme that Haslett prefers to run, not because we have the personnel for it, which should be the main consideration.

How do you know Haynesworth is a square peg in a round hole, playing 3-4? He hasn't played a single snap in Haslett's 3-4. We don't even really know what Haslett's plans are for him. He hasn't even practiced with the team in a 3-4! If he practiced it and played in it, IT MIGHT WORK! If he plays it and it doesn't work, I bet the coaches will be the first ones trying to change it. Here's where you and I part company on this issue. Haynesworth is payed (a LOT) to play. The Coaches are payed to coach. Coaches are doing their jobs. Haynesworth isn't. Trade him. Get some value. Move on.

I'd have some respect for Haynesworth if played hard, led by example, THEN pointed out some concerns with the scheme. But Haynesworth played part of a game or two last year as a two gap DT for Blache and he was whining to the media right away. Now, here he is again, hasn't lifted a finger, but he's saying to the media he doesn't want to play NT. I have zero respect for a guy like that. Locker room cancer and as such, overpaid. We want a team of better character than what Haynesworth is offering.

[KazooSkinsFan]

That doesn't explain why the team is hell bent on trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by even contemplating using a 3-4. We have personnel perfectly suited for the 4-3, yet the coaches are stubbornly determined to switch to a 3-4, despite not having the personnel to do it

You're just making it up as you go. We haven't played a snap and all they said is they're looking at it and they are considering hybrids, yet they are already "stubborn" and you refuse them permission to even "contemplate" it. This statement is pathetic, there's no other way to describe it.

If they aren't going to transition to a 3-4 then what's the issue with Haynesworth?

First of all, I want to keep Haynesworth so I'm not arguing against him. Second, he's still here and we just payed the guy $21 million. So that you're even making this statement as a statement is highly dubious. But the media sure wouldn't make stuff up or exaggerate, so you got me there.

But as to why Haynesworth?

First, for the same reason you're against McNabb, his age. But his time horizon for us is almost certainly shorter then McNabb's so even moreso. So even if he's a beast for us now when he's on the field, thinking longer term what can we get for him may make sense to look at.

Second, if we dump him for a lame trade, then your argument might start to hold some water, but we haven't. If we get a lot for him for reason number one it's why it could make sense now. His value is probably not going to go up in the future.

Third, his attitude. His statements to the media, his attitude towards the team and management and his attitude towards doing what they want. As a manager, I pay attention to the skills of my employees, but in the end I expect them to do what I need them to do for the business to succeed and maybe Shanahan wants the same.

But regardless to any of these, your saying they are "stubborn" without having played a down of 3-4 or your having any idea how they are going to play it or use our players in it, and that we shouldn't contemplate the scheme we want to move to in the future because of the staff we have today are still just preposterous points.

[CanesSkins26]

First, for the same reason you're against McNabb, his age. But his time horizon for us is almost certainly shorter then McNabb's so even moreso. So even if he's a beast for us now when he's on the field, thinking longer term what can we get for him may make sense to look at.

Haynesworth is 5 years younger than McNabb. Yes, he likely has a shorter playing career ahead of him than McNabb, but the guy is only 28.

Second, if we dump him for a lame trade, then your argument might start to hold some water, but we haven't. If we get a lot for him for reason number one it's why it could make sense now. His value is probably not going to go up in the future.

You make a good point about his value likely not being higher in the future. My concern here is how Carter and Orakpo will perform without Big Al. I don't think that it's a coincident that Carter had his best season with Haynesworth on the team.

Third, his attitude. His statements to the media, his attitude towards the team and management and his attitude towards doing what they want. As a manager, I pay attention to the skills of my employees, but in the end I expect them to do what I need them to do for the business to succeed and maybe Shanahan wants the same.

If they are so concerned about attitude and character, why bring in LJ? There isn't a more dysfunctional human being in the NFL than Johnson. Threatening women with guns, spitting on women, using gay slurs, etc.

Also, if attitude and work habits are such an issue with Haynesworth, then there are plenty of other guys, starting with Laron Landry and Carlos Rogers, that should be following him right out the door.

But regardless to any of these, your saying they are "stubborn" without having played a down of 3-4 or your having any idea how they are going to play it or use our players in it, and that we shouldn't contemplate the scheme we want to move to in the future because of the staff we have today are still just preposterous points.

Obviously we don't know exactly what the defense will be. I just happen to believe that the main reason for the friction with Big Al is over a switch to 3-4. Nothing else, at least as we've seen it, merits trading a guy as talented as he is. We have so many problems on this team that are far more of a problem than Big Al. We've also heard players make statements about a 3-4, so it's not like people are pulling this out of thin air.

[KazooSkinsFan]

We've also heard players make statements about a 3-4, so it's not like people are pulling this out of thin air.

So my choices are either that people are "pulling it out of thin air" or that the coaches are "stubborn" and shouldn't even "contemplate" a 3-4? Why are those my choices? Yes, I'm somewhere between those polar extremes.

As for the rest, you made a lot of points I agree with. As I said, I want to keep AH. I also agree I don't want the woman beater. I was answering your question why they might shop him now.

[The Hogster]

@Caneskins. A few questions.

How do YOU know we don't have the personnel to switch to a 3-4?? Obviously the coaches do. Experienced coaches at that. So please tell me how your roster breakdown is superior to theirs.

How do YOU know Haynesworth cannot rotate along different positions on the line. That is precisely what he did in Tennessee. He sometimes went from tackle to Defensive End. Defensive end in a 3-4 is much like D Tackle in a 4-3. If the guy commands double and triple teams, where do you make the leap that he isn't suited to play NT and take on 2-3 defenders?

How do YOU propose we build a team when you let a guy like Haynesworth show that he gets to work under a different set of rules??? London Fletcher is a pure MLB in a 4-3. Do you hear him complaining about the move? He now has to share the inside with a guy like Rocky?

Please share your superior knowledge.

[PulpExposure]

According to Schefter, Haynesworth is not being shopped, and the last time he was offered was to the Eagles for McNabb on March 31.

[fleetus]

@Caneskins. A few questions.

How do YOU know we don't have the personnel to switch to a 3-4?? Obviously the coaches do. Experienced coaches at that. So please tell me how your roster breakdown is superior to theirs.

How do YOU know Haynesworth cannot rotate along different positions on the line. That is precisely what he did in Tennessee. He sometimes went from tackle to Defensive End. Defensive end in a 3-4 is much like D Tackle in a 4-3. If the guy commands double and triple teams, where do you make the leap that he isn't suited to play NT and take on 2-3 defenders?

How do YOU propose we build a team when you let a guy like Haynesworth show that he gets to work under a different set of rules??? London Fletcher is a pure MLB in a 4-3. Do you hear him complaining about the move? He now has to share the inside with a guy like Rocky?

Please share your superior knowledge.

This issue isn't about knowledge. I know the 3-4 and 4-3 and many other schemes quite well. Haynesworth could succeed in any of them. It is about character and authority. Haynesworth, so far, has not shown the character to be a good team mate or even try haslett's scheme to see how it works. Haynesworth said himself he doesn't know much about the 3-4. But evidently, he said and did things to show Shanahan he may not be worth the trouble. The team does not exist for the purpose of making Haynesworth look good. In fact the opposite should be true. Maybe this thing will get turned around, but it will have to be as a result of Haynesworth working hard to play where Haslett wants him and trusting that ONLY THEN can Haslett see how to make adjustments to put Haynesworth in the best position to help the team win.

[chiefhog44]

According to Schefter, Haynesworth is not being shopped, and the last time he was offered was to the Eagles for McNabb on March 31.

Damage control

[brad7686]

According to Schefter, Haynesworth is not being shopped, and the last time he was offered was to the Eagles for McNabb on March 31.

Damage control

Definitely, they tried to move his slovenly, overpaid arse but failed, now they don't want him to go all hulk on everybody.

[CanesSkins26]

How do YOU know we don't have the personnel to switch to a 3-4?? Obviously the coaches do. Experienced coaches at that. So please tell me how your roster breakdown is superior to theirs.

I didn't see we don't have the personnel for it. I said our players our players are better suited for a 4-3.

Why did we sign Komoeatu if we already had the personnel for a 3-4?

Haynesworth has made clear he doesn't want to play NT.

Carter has struggled as a linebacker in a 3-4 and said himself that he is better suited to be a 4-3 DE.

Fletcher has never played in a 3-4.

Orakpo has never played in a 3-4.

Rocky has never played in a 3-4.

All of these are players that have flourished in the base 4-3 and have never played in a 3-4. Why mess with that? If our D was garbage I would understand this, but it's not.

[quoted]How do YOU know Haynesworth cannot rotate along different positions on the line. That is precisely what he did in Tennessee. He sometimes went from tackle to Defensive End. Defensive end in a 3-4 is much like D Tackle in a 4-3. If the guy commands double and triple teams, where do you make the leap that he isn't suited to play NT and take on 2-3 defenders? [/quoted]

I never said he couldn't. I said it was a waste of money and talent to use him in that role. We also know what he doesn't want to play NT. Again, if you have a guy that is the best at what he does, why ask him to change?[/quote]

[fleetus]

How do YOU know we don't have the personnel to switch to a 3-4?? Obviously the coaches do. Experienced coaches at that. So please tell me how your roster breakdown is superior to theirs.

I didn't see we don't have the personnel for it. I said our players our players are better suited for a 4-3.

Why did we sign Komoeatu if we already had the personnel for a 3-4?

Haynesworth has made clear he doesn't want to play NT.

Carter has struggled as a linebacker in a 3-4 and said himself that he is better suited to be a 4-3 DE.

Fletcher has never played in a 3-4.

Orakpo has never played in a 3-4.

Rocky has never played in a 3-4.

All of these are players that have flourished in the base 4-3 and have never played in a 3-4. Why mess with that? If our D was garbage I would understand this, but it's not.

[quoted]How do YOU know Haynesworth cannot rotate along different positions on the line. That is precisely what he did in Tennessee. He sometimes went from tackle to Defensive End. Defensive end in a 3-4 is much like D Tackle in a 4-3. If the guy commands double and triple teams, where do you make the leap that he isn't suited to play NT and take on 2-3 defenders? [/quoted]

I never said he couldn't. I said it was a waste of money and talent to use him in that role. We also know what he doesn't want to play NT. Again, if you have a guy that is the best at what he does, why ask him to change?

[/quote]

You are all over the map. To make your point you're trying to say they've all "flourished" in the 4-3? I'm pretty sure you've been constantly saying how mediocre Blache's defense was. How it didn't create any turnovers. I agree mostly. But now you're trying to say this same personnel should stick with the 4-3 because they're so good at it???

Half of these players will do just fine, maybe better in a 3-4. Fletcher is not Lemar Marshall. Plus, you can run the 3-4 so many ways, it almost becomes a ridiculous argument. Orakpo is tailor made for the 3-4. So is Daniels. Carter is the lone exception. and yes they did have to sign Kemo. Big whoop.

You don't need a massive NT in the 3-4 either. it is about heart, technique and unselfishness. Baltimore uses Kelly Gregg even though Ngata is bigger and more athletic. Gregg has a knack for handling double teams. That's one way to do it. HAslett will find his own way with the Redskins personnel. Might be a hybrid. Might be more of a one gap 3-4. Might be a two gap 3-4. Maybe some one gap, some two gap, some 4-3 and some 4-2-5! Haynesworth wouldn't know because he hasn't given it a chance yet.

[CanesSkins26]

You are all over the map. To make your point you're trying to say they've all "flourished" in the 4-3? I'm pretty sure you've been constantly saying how mediocre Blache's defense was. How it didn't create any turnovers. I agree mostly. But now you're trying to say this same personnel should stick with the 4-3 because they're so good at it???

The problem was Blache not the players (with the exception of the secondary). The front 7 played great last season.

[SkinsJock]

I find it hard to believe we would pay this guy that amount and then think about trading him - I think a lot has been 'creatively reported' as usual
I'm sure that they have entertained thoughts about all the players here and if they are worth keeping or trading - happens all the time

as far as what Haynesworth is doing or not doing to get ready and his feelings about the team - from the interviews I have heard, his attitude leaves a lot to be desired
this guy had better start getting ready to show some commitment and some desire or he will hear about it from Mike, Bruce and Jim Haslett

I really don't think we get what he's worth on the trade front and he stays
then it gets to be fun because he will be playing at the level he is expected to with these guys in charge or he will not be on the field
no team is going to want a player who does not want to play