Haynesworth's buddy thinks he might be back

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 9:51 am

I guess anything is possible - I'm not sure how Mike feels about this possibility though

http://eye-on-football.blogs.cbssports. ... 8/28561057

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 10:11 am

Hmph... up to this point, I thought Jeremy Jarmon was well grounded in reality...

apparently, his reality only exists in an alternative universe.

gay4pacman · Post by **gay4pacman** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 10:58 am

I could see it happening. As crazy as it sounds. man the offseason is boring!

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 1:19 pm

Shanahan is not going to release Albert for nothing in return. If Albert doesn't get traded or pay money back, he will not be released. If Mike wanted to dump Albert for a 5th, 6th or 7th round draft choice, he would have done so last year. He has let it be known that the days of players taking Redskin money and not producing are over and that Mike is going to hold players to that.

So what is the probability that Albert will be back? Albert is not paying anything back. Fat chance that any team will give more than a 4th rounder for him (I don't think Mike is ready to accept a 4th). There are only a couple of teams that might (that is a big might) be interested in trading for him at his present contract given his history of problems.

Probability returning? high

Probability that Albert is back and is productive and doesn't get suspended again? I won't touch that.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 3:13 pm

As each day passes, I have to say that I increasingly think it's possible that we'll see both Haynesworth and McNabb back.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 3:14 pm

I don't know... can you really see Shanahan wasting a valuable roster spot on a slug? I believe that Shanahan is attempting to be true to his principles, but there would be a cost to keeping a player who will not play... basically, it would mean writing off a roster spot. That's a pretty expensive principle.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 4:10 pm

Countertrey wrote:I don't know... can you really see Shanahan wasting a valuable roster spot on a slug? I believe that Shanahan is attempting to be true to his principles, but there would be a cost to keeping a player who will not play... basically, it would mean writing off a roster spot. That's a pretty expensive principle.

Albert only played in about 8 games last year, so technically that's what Shanny did for half a season last year. As we have been learning Mike doesn't like doing anything halfway. :cry:

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 4:30 pm

Countertrey wrote:I don't know... can you really see Shanahan wasting a valuable roster spot on a slug? I believe that Shanahan is attempting to be true to his principles, but there would be a cost to keeping a player who will not play... basically, it would mean writing off a roster spot. That's a pretty expensive principle.

You bring up a good point and I think that most coaches would move on already, but Shanahan in these types of situations has proven to be different. Mike is consistent with each player from what I read. He takes a player up to the film room and shows them on film what they are doing wrong and what they need to do to correct it. He did this with Dockery. I think that all along he thought Dock would pull it together during the season and rise up to the potential All-Pro he could be. It never happened. Seasons over - no hard feelings and released him. Andre Carter couldn't, as expected, play the OLB. No hard feelings and released him. Albert couldn't or wouldn't play NT or DE with proper technique, so why not go ahead and release Albert just like Andre and Dock and move on and get on with Mike Shanahan type of guys?

I don't think it is only about holding Albert accountable. I agree with you that a coach just wouldn't purposely waste a roster spot especially on a team in our shape. I think that Mike feels that the reason no one ever got Albert to play is everyone would give into him because he was so talented. I think that Mike really thinks that if Albert is pushed into a corner - given a choice to ride the inactive list or play, he will choose to play. If Mike gets Albert to play Mike's way, and play it well, Mike will come out like a genius because he not only would have pulled off the impossible, he would have solved a hole in the defense.

What't the probability of that happening? Low and next to ZERO, but there were times that it seemed like it was working last year - 1st Eagles game and the Bears game.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 4:58 pm

Then, of course, there was that second Eagles game... wallow, wallow...

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 5:34 pm

Countertrey wrote:Then, of course, there was that second Eagles game... wallow, wallow...

And that is the why it will be hard to trade Albert and since Mike will not release him - HE's BAAAAACK! :shock:

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 5:54 pm

Countertrey wrote:Then, of course, there was that second Eagles game... wallow, wallow...

He was just resting up for the offseason, he's smart enough to know all those offseason court dates would mean long hours, so he was just getting ready for them

KCskin · Post by **KCskin** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 6:39 am

While not a Albert fan I do think Mike screwed up by taking a guy who is not a Nose Tackle and refusing to play him at DE where he could be an influence.

If it was okay to bench AH and play Bryant at NT, then why not have played Bryant AND Haynseworth as the DE?

What I felt that it came down to was that Mike would feel like he lost an argument.
God forbid.
It will always be better for the team to lose than for mighty Mike to take a blemish.

If left me bitter about Shanahan.

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:16 am

KCskin wrote:While not a Albert fan I do think Mike screwed up by taking a guy who is not a Nose Tackle and refusing to play him at DE where he could be an influence.

If it was okay to bench AH and play Bryant at NT, then why not have played Bryant AND Haynseworth as the DE?

What I felt that it came down to was that Mike would feel like he lost an argument.
God forbid.
It will always be better for the team to lose than for mighty Mike to take a blemish.

If left me bitter about Shanahan.

You raise a good question. Mike wanted Albert to play NT because he knew that he didn't have one. Maake, as you know, was returning after being out all year and wasn't expected to be full strength. Mike was salivating over the potential of Albert as a NT. Later, he did try Albert at DE, especially in the last pre-season game againt the Cardinals. Albert kept trying to get up field as he had always done. He made too many mistakes. If you remember, still later in the season, Haslett said that we were trying to put a square peg in a round hole with Albert playing NT. That is when things started to pick up - first Philly game. He played lots of DE that game and became a role player in certain packages.

You are right that Mike was stubborn about the situation. My guess is Haslett kept trying to tell him. Remember, Albert and Jim had a good relationship.

This situation shed light into how Mike works when it comes to talent. If I remember correctly, you are aware of Mike from his Denver days. I think that Mike misjudging Albert as a NT showed how he misjudged McNabb as a QB for this team. An article in the post said that Mike looks at highlight film and then thinks that he can do anything with that player because he thinks that he is a great personnel guy.

By him finally admitting that he regreted his handling of Donovan in Detroit, hopefully, he ate a little humble pie and will be better this time around.

VetSkinsFan · Post by **VetSkinsFan** » Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:38 am

Red_One43 wrote:
KCskin wrote:While not a Albert fan I do think Mike screwed up by taking a guy who is not a Nose Tackle and refusing to play him at DE where he could be an influence.

If it was okay to bench AH and play Bryant at NT, then why not have played Bryant AND Haynseworth as the DE?

What I felt that it came down to was that Mike would feel like he lost an argument.
God forbid.
It will always be better for the team to lose than for mighty Mike to take a blemish.

If left me bitter about Shanahan.

You raise a good question. Mike wanted Albert to play NT because he knew that he didn't have one. Maake, as you know, was returning after being out all year and wasn't expected to be full strength. Mike was salivating over the potential of Albert as a NT. Later, he did try Albert at DE, especially in the last pre-season game againt the Cardinals. Albert kept trying to get up field as he had always done. He made too many mistakes. If you remember, still later in the season, Haslett said that we were trying to put a square peg in a round hole with Albert playing NT. That is when things started to pick up - first Philly game. He played lots of DE that game and became a role player in certain packages.

You are right that Mike was stubborn about the situation. My guess is Haslett kept trying to tell him. Remember, Albert and Jim had a good relationship.

This situation shed light into how Mike works when it comes to talent. If I remember correctly, you are aware of Mike from his Denver days. I think that Mike misjudging Albert as a NT showed how he misjudged McNabb as a QB for this team. An article in the post said that Mike looks at highlight film and then thinks that he can do anything with that player because he thinks that he is a great personnel guy.

By him finally admitting that he regreted his handling of Donovan in Detroit, hopefully, he ate a little humble pie and will be better this time around.

The quoted material is exactly how I feel about the whole situation.

As for Mike S eating humble pie? I seriously doubt it. He's left me with an unfavorable opinion with last year's handling of Al and Donovan. This year is the make or break year with Mike. You can't always be a hardass when you get the results Mike has gotten here...

langleyparkjoe · Post by **langleyparkjoe** » Mon Apr 18, 2011 9:19 am

Red_One43 wrote:Shanahan is not going to release Albert for nothing in return. If Albert doesn't get traded or pay money back, he will not be released. If Mike wanted to dump Albert for a 5th, 6th or 7th round draft choice, he would have done so last year. He has let it be known that the days of players taking Redskin money and not producing are over and that Mike is going to hold players to that.

Hey Red, you do realize last year haynesworfless got paid to sit on the bench per shanahan right? Lucky bastid even had a suite for one home game if I remember right?

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Mon Apr 18, 2011 9:40 am

langleyparkjoe wrote:
Red_One43 wrote:Shanahan is not going to release Albert for nothing in return. If Albert doesn't get traded or pay money back, he will not be released. If Mike wanted to dump Albert for a 5th, 6th or 7th round draft choice, he would have done so last year. He has let it be known that the days of players taking Redskin money and not producing are over and that Mike is going to hold players to that.

Hey Red, you do realize last year haynesworfless got paid to sit on the bench per shanahan right? Lucky bastid even had a suite for one home game if I remember right?

I realize it and I realize it that it may happen again this year. I can't figure out what is in Mike's head (who can), but I will give it a try - One he thinks that he can get Albert to play by backing him into a corner. Two - he doesn't want Albert walking out of here with Redskin money and then getting another team's money on top of that. In other words - you fiil your obligation or you ain't playin' nowhere. Kinda reminds me of the current labor situation - a battel of the wills as the two sides refuse to move both sides lose. Mike is losing and Albert is losing. Can the two work it out so both win? Will this have a happy ending? Meanwhile back to the labor dispute because if that doesn't get resolved - who cares about the Mike and Albert Show!

Reality, is that Mike did what he did last year and paid Albert to sit. Last time, I heard from Albert about the matter he was spewing off at the mouth on the radio, so I don't think that Albert was too content on sitting in the suite. Albert might be thinking long term and realizing that his potential to make more millions goes away with each sit on the bench.

LPJ, how about giving it your best shot on explaining why Mike kept a roster spot for Albert and chose to pay him to sit - First Giants game would be a good one to start with.

langleyparkjoe · Post by **langleyparkjoe** » Mon Apr 18, 2011 12:00 pm

Red_One43 wrote:
langleyparkjoe wrote:
Red_One43 wrote:Shanahan is not going to release Albert for nothing in return. If Albert doesn't get traded or pay money back, he will not be released. If Mike wanted to dump Albert for a 5th, 6th or 7th round draft choice, he would have done so last year. He has let it be known that the days of players taking Redskin money and not producing are over and that Mike is going to hold players to that.

Hey Red, you do realize last year haynesworfless got paid to sit on the bench per shanahan right? Lucky bastid even had a suite for one home game if I remember right?

I realize it and I realize it that it may happen again this year. I can't figure out what is in Mike's head (who can), but I will give it a try - One he thinks that he can get Albert to play by backing him into a corner. Two - he doesn't want Albert walking out of here with Redskin money and then getting another team's money on top of that. In other words - you fiil your obligation or you ain't playin' nowhere. Kinda reminds me of the current labor situation - a battel of the wills as the two sides refuse to move both sides lose. Mike is losing and Albert is losing. Can the two work it out so both win? Will this have a happy ending? Meanwhile back to the labor dispute because if that doesn't get resolved - who cares about the Mike and Albert Show!

Reality, is that Mike did what he did last year and paid Albert to sit. Last time, I heard from Albert about the matter he was spewing off at the mouth on the radio, so I don't think that Albert was too content on sitting in the suite. Albert might be thinking long term and realizing that his potential to make more millions goes away with each sit on the bench.

LPJ, how about giving it your best shot on explaining why Mike kept a roster spot for Albert and chose to pay him to sit - First Giants game would be a good one to start with.

43 my friend, I've been trying to figure out Mike all flippin year and I've failed, miserably. :lol:

Aside from the reasons you gave, I have nothing to add man.. in Trinidad we use the world "blight" instead of "jinx".. it's like DC Sports have a serious blight over we head!!! ..

(let's go Caps, break the vudoo jinx!)

fanforlife · Post by **fanforlife** » Mon Apr 18, 2011 12:53 pm

I don't care how much Fat Al has been given already. I don't care about his contract. I don't care how unhappy he is. At the end of the day M.S. is the coach & ALL players must do what's asked of them.

Before Fat Al was given his $21 million last year he was told that if he accepted the $$$, he was expected to do WHATEVER the team asked of him. It's the opinion of many, including myself, that he didn't.

He didn't show up for OTAs. He didn't show up for training camp. He set people against him right away & how can you have team unity like that? The sad part about it is that he said he'll do that again!

All he did was bitch & complain.

I would rather have a guy who may not be as talented but has the right attitude & want's to be a "team player" not a cancer.

We finally have a coach who's not going to be a push over & who won't take grief from a player just because of a big contract. We finally have a coach who will instill the discipline & the commitment to winning that we've lacked for so long.

Albert Haynesworth may be back next season but the drama that has surrounded him won't be. If he expects (or even want's) to play at all next year, I think he'll play what ever position coach wants him to or else he'll sit on the bench some more. I think he has learned his lesson.

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:30 pm

fanforlife wrote:I don't care how much Fat Al has been given already. I don't care about his contract. I don't care how unhappy he is. At the end of the day M.S. is the coach & ALL players must do what's asked of them.

Before Fat Al was given his $21 million last year he was told that if he accepted the $$$, he was expected to do WHATEVER the team asked of him. It's the opinion of many, including myself, that he didn't.

He didn't show up for OTAs. He didn't show up for training camp. He set people against him right away & how can you have team unity like that? The sad part about it is that he said he'll do that again!

All he did was bitch & complain.

I would rather have a guy who may not be as talented but has the right attitude & want's to be a "team player" not a cancer.

We finally have a coach who's not going to be a push over & who won't take grief from a player just because of a big contract. We finally have a coach who will instill the discipline & the commitment to winning that we've lacked for so long.

Albert Haynesworth may be back next season but the drama that has surrounded him won't be. If he expects (or even want's) to play at all next year, I think he'll play what ever position coach wants him to or else he'll sit on the bench some more. I think he has learned his lesson.

So, what I an reading you saying is you don't have problem with Albert being back because like the article says, Albert is ready to play football and you believe that there will not be any drama like last year. I sure hope that you are right about the no drama. I have no problem with Albert being back, but I see Albert as a "mind is willing, but the heart is weak" type of guy. I see Mike not giving an inch. Albert can come back, but he better give 100% in practice or he won't play. Albert hates practice. I see drama. For Albert's sake, good thing there won't be OTA's this year.

Let's just hope that somebody with willing to give up a 3rd for him znd then the whole thing will be moot.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:51 pm

fanforlife said:

I think he has learned his lesson.

I think that's beyond his capacity... but I'd love for you to be right...

fanforlife · Post by **fanforlife** » Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:58 pm

Red_One43 wrote:So, what I an reading you saying is you don't have problem with Albert being back...

Good afternoon Red_One 43

No sir, I do have a problem with him coming back.

For me it's too late, he's burned all bridges to my respect.

Like you, I also see Shanny not giving an inch, as he shouldn't, he's the coach & VP of football op's.
As far as I'm concerned it's too little too late, actions speak louder than words, & his actions have spoken volumes as to his feelings about this franchise.

You may see him as a "mind is willing ,but the heart is weak" type of guy, but I see him as a "mind is UNwilling & the heart is weak" type of guy.

Like I said before, I would rather have a guy who may not have the same talent, but is willing to lay it all on the line FOR HIS TEAM! An underdog tends to have more fire than a guy who's supposed to be the "main man" & who's gotten complacent.

If Fat Al does want to play, then I believe that he'll play according to what M.S. wants & that's why I think there won't be any drama...or at least as much.

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Mon Apr 18, 2011 5:35 pm

fanforlife wrote:
You may see him as a "mind is willing ,but the heart is weak" type of guy, but I see him as a "mind is UNwilling & the heart is weak" type of guy.

Let me restate: By the statement issued by Jarmon in the article posted by the author of this thread, Albert is willing to give it another try.
“Talking to Albert I think that he'll be fine with it and a more expanded role and I know he was kind of disappointed not playing more last year,” Jarmon said.

That is "mind willing." Thus that makes him by definition a "mind is willing" type of guy at least in this instance. If you remember after the first Eagle game, Mike had good things to say about Albert - his mind was willing in that instance too. Bears game was considered pretty impressive as well. Not sure that is is justified to say that the guy is "UNwilling.

And if he decides to play according to Mike - that would make him "willing" as well, at least in the mind. Now, when he takes the field and has to practice hard each week in order to play ....

Like I said before, I would rather have a guy who may not have the same talent, but is willing to lay it all on the line FOR HIS TEAM! An underdog tends to have more fire than a guy who's supposed to be the "main man" & who's gotten complacent.

So what I read you saying is you would rather Mike just go ahead and release him if he can't be traded.

If Fat Al does want to play, then I believe that he'll play according to what M.S. wants & that's why I think there won't be any drama...or at least as much.

I see you softened it up a bit with "or at least as much."

One thing that you and I might agree on is this - if Albert refuses anything - he will be written up each and everytime and disciplinary action will be taken against him sooner than later. Last year, they failed to write him up. This another reason why Mike is not afraid to take him back.

chiefhog44 · Post by **chiefhog44** » Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:59 pm

The guys is a cancer and the more people he is in contact with on the team, the more infections there will be. Cut him

VetSkinsFan · Post by **VetSkinsFan** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 7:55 am

langleyparkjoe wrote:
Red_One43 wrote:Shanahan is not going to release Albert for nothing in return. If Albert doesn't get traded or pay money back, he will not be released. If Mike wanted to dump Albert for a 5th, 6th or 7th round draft choice, he would have done so last year. He has let it be known that the days of players taking Redskin money and not producing are over and that Mike is going to hold players to that.

Hey Red, you do realize last year haynesworfless got paid to sit on the bench per shanahan right? Lucky bastid even had a suite for one home game if I remember right?

Damn LPJ, you were harsh, you even got ghetto on him :lol:

tribeofjudah · Post by **tribeofjudah** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:19 am

chiefhog44 wrote:The guys is a cancer and the more people he is in contact with on the team, the more infections there will be. Cut him

BANISH him to the ends of the earth..........