Haynesworth already becoming a problem?

[fleetus]

I said from day one this would be a bad signing

I guess we'll just have to take your word for that.

As dominant as he is, he needs to be ousted from this team asap.

Shanahan's been pretty consistent in his statements that Haynsworth is NOT being traded, so I wouldn't hold my breath quite yet...

Despite the fact that Shanahan has already tried to trade him at least once and most believe there have been multiple trade talks, just no very good offers for him. During the draft it was reported a 3rd rounder was the most anyone would offer. Can't blame Shanahan for turning that down. Although, right now, a 3rd rounder is looking pretty good.

At this point, Haynesworth would have to go to the Pro Bowl a few years in a row to make up for the cost of his contract and poor leadership/work ethic he has shown so far. But I doubt he makes even one Pro Bowl for this team.

[fleetus]

If AH is not in shape and able to give 100% when he shows up, I would make him a bench warmer for the rest of his contract. Either you are a team player or you are not.

Since I'm old and grumpy, I'll speak the truth. Nobody is a team player. Nobody. People play at being team players to get along and make a buck.
AH only does what he has to, like everyone else. Daniels has to be there--to make the team. AH doesn't, and his contract says he doesn't.

I think you are EXACTLY wrong. In the modern era of free agency football, players who deserve it almost always get their money. The team with the lowest payroll has plenty of well paid players. Then there are a bunch of teams who are right up near the salary cap with their payrolls. So almost all 32 teams are very competitive financially and on the field.

SO, what separates the playoff teams from the 6-10's and 8-8's of the league? Talent? Nope. Money? Nope. Fan base? Nope. The difference is very small. It is the cohesiveness between teammates and coaches. If the players have solid leadership, respect and work together to build momentum through the season they can exceed expectations. They have the trust in each other to overcome a 14 point deficit in the 4th quarter and win a game. They have the discipline not to let an easier game slip (like Skins vs. Lions last season).

I say once you have a decent foundation of coaches and talented players to build from, then the WHOLE difference between 6-10 and 10-6 is the leadership, work ethic, unselfishness and trust teammates and coaches have each other. That's it in a nutshell.

and Crazyhorse, if I believed the NFL was the way you describe it, I wouldn't be a fan anymore.

[langleyparkjoe]

If AH is not in shape and able to give 100% when he shows up, I would make him a bench warmer for the rest of his contract. Either you are a team player or you are not.

Since I'm old and grumpy, I'll speak the truth. Nobody is a team player. Nobody. People play at being team players to get along and make a buck.
AH only does what he has to, like everyone else. Daniels has to be there--to make the team. AH doesn't, and his contract says he doesn't.

Let me take a moment out of this thread to introduce you to my buddy Crazyhorse1--->

[fleetus]

I have no idea why you're worried. Haynesworth's attitude can only be a problem if it is permitted to spread. What is becoming clear is that the players don't intend to let it. From listening to the players, it sounds like they are all saying that they are moving on either with Albert, or without him. Albert can join them... or be a pariah... but it doesn't sound like they are going to let him drag anyone else down with him.



Life's too short.

Good point. We spend a lot of time talking about the Albert drama, but the fact that the rest of the team is starting to pull together already is a great story and more important than whether AH is sitting at home eating milk duds or not.

[SkinsJock]

It is what it is - I would be surprised if Haynesworth is going to be a part of this franchise when we have a consistently competitive product on the field - that being said, this franchise (and any franchise) is a whole lot better with Haynesworth (and any player for that matter) as a 'happy' part of the team - ONLY he can decide if he's going to contribute or not and I think that Shanahan gets rid of him by the time this program turns around

we are not suddenly going to be a whole lot better or win more games here this coming season, with or without this guy - this franchise is a couple of years away and we will see if he really wants to play or not over the next season - he's not here next year IF he continues this BS

he's not worth losing any sleep over

[RedskinsFreak]

CAN he do what he's doing? By all means, yes. That's what's in the CBA.

But the true price of team and individual success is going beyond the letter of the CBA.

I don't want players who hold too firmly to the dictionary definition of 'mandatory' and 'voluntary.' To me, they're just hiding behind those words.

[PulpExposure]

CAN he do what he's doing? By all means, yes. That's what's in the CBA.

But the true price of team and individual success is going beyond the letter of the CBA.

I don't want players who hold too firmly to the dictionary definition of 'mandatory' and 'voluntary.' To me, they're just hiding behind those words.

As an employee of a international corporation, I hold firmly to the definitions of mandatory and voluntary, and I hold my direct reports to those definitions. In my opinion, I see no idea why a football player should be held to different standards. If it's truly mandatory, make it so.

[fleetus]

CAN he do what he's doing? By all means, yes. That's what's in the CBA.

But the true price of team and individual success is going beyond the letter of the CBA.

I don't want players who hold too firmly to the dictionary definition of 'mandatory' and 'voluntary.' To me, they're just hiding behind those words.

As an employee of a international corporation, I hold firmly to the definitions of mandatory and voluntary, and I hold my direct reports to those definitions. In my opinion, I see no idea why a football player should be held to different standards. If it's truly mandatory, make it so.

I don't know what you do for a living, but I doubt you're paid million$ to do it. I also doubt that your ability to contribute hinges on learning a completely new system, working with new teammates and a whole new management staff. Even AH's teammates are beginning to state their frustration with his absence. That is the true barometer for when a player has crossed the line.

[PulpExposure]

CAN he do what he's doing? By all means, yes. That's what's in the CBA.

But the true price of team and individual success is going beyond the letter of the CBA.

I don't want players who hold too firmly to the dictionary definition of 'mandatory' and 'voluntary.' To me, they're just hiding behind those words.

As an employee of a international corporation, I hold firmly to the definitions of mandatory and voluntary, and I hold my direct reports to those definitions. In my opinion, I see no idea why a football player should be held to different standards. If it's truly mandatory, make it so.

I don't know what you do for a living, but I doubt you're paid million$ to do it.

I wish!

I also doubt that your ability to contribute hinges on learning a completely new system, working with new teammates and a whole new management staff.

Every time I move jobs, I need to relearn how the company does things from various legal perspectives. And while I have respect for football players, it's not quite the same as assessing legal risk and liability for a regulated company, as everyone has different policies, procedures, risk tolerances, unwritten guidelines, etc. However, at the end of the day, it's still me being a lawyer.

And at the end of his day, it's still Haynesworth beating the guy in front of him.

Even AH's teammates are beginning to state their frustration with his absence. That is the true barometer for when a player has crossed the line.

Perhaps. But at the same time, that's peer pressure. It's still not mandatory according to the terms of his employment.

[langleyparkjoe]

I'd love for him to be there to pick up on small stuff and get to know the newbies. However, it's voluntary, leave it alone already sheesh.

[Irn-Bru]

As an employee of a international corporation, I hold firmly to the definitions of mandatory and voluntary, and I hold my direct reports to those definitions. In my opinion, I see no idea why a football player should be held to different standards. If it's truly mandatory, make it so.

Perhaps. But at the same time, that's peer pressure. It's still not mandatory according to the terms of his employment.

Very few, if there even is anyone, are claiming that Haynesworth's presence should be mandatory, as in he should face penalties or a reduced contract if he doesn't show. What most people have in mind, myself included, is that it isn't just Haynesworth's business if he decides to workout and practice with the team or not. In his actions he is clearly hurting team chemistry at a crucial time, with a new coach and new organization in place. He is missing an opportunity to clear his own reputation after publicly calling out his coaches last season and acting like a child at times, throwing temper tantrums or pouting to the media. His actions are also betraying his attitude toward the 4-12 season that this team just had: whether he likes it or not, what his actions are saying is that he does not believe himself to have been a part of the problem and that he's not 100% on board to work together with his teammates to find the solution.

All these things are being broadcast loud and clear to his coaches, teammates, and the fans. So the latter have every right to blast him publicly, even if Haynesworth retains a technical recourse to the definition of "voluntary." I'll grant him that: yes, the practices are not mandatory, and Haynesworth is within his rights to work out somewhere else. He's not legally wrong; he's just an a$$hole—and a bad teammate. (And I wouldn't fine him for being a bad teammate, either!)

[fleetus]

As an employee of a international corporation, I hold firmly to the definitions of mandatory and voluntary, and I hold my direct reports to those definitions. In my opinion, I see no idea why a football player should be held to different standards. If it's truly mandatory, make it so.

Perhaps. But at the same time, that's peer pressure. It's still not mandatory according to the terms of his employment.

Very few, if there even is anyone, are claiming that Haynesworth's presence should be mandatory, as in he should face penalties or a reduced contract if he doesn't show. What most people have in mind, myself included, is that it isn't just Haynesworth's business if he decides to workout and practice with the team or not. In his actions he is clearly hurting team chemistry at a crucial time, with a new coach and new organization in place. He is missing an opportunity to clear his own reputation after publicly calling out his coaches last season and acting like a child at times, throwing temper tantrums or pouting to the media. His actions are also betraying his attitude toward the 4-12 season that this team just had: whether he likes it or not, what his actions are saying is that he does not believe himself to have been a part of the problem and that he's not 100% on board to work together with his teammates to find the solution.

All these things are being broadcast loud and clear to his coaches, teammates, and the fans. So the latter have every right to blast him publicly, even if Haynesworth retains a technical recourse to the definition of "voluntary." I'll grant him that: yes, the practices are not mandatory, and Haynesworth is within his rights to work out somewhere else. He's not legally wrong; he's just an a$$hole—and a bad teammate. (And I wouldn't fine him for being a bad teammate, either!)

Well said. The fact that he is by far the highest paid player on the team, including a fat $21M bonus he just cashed in April only adds to the expectation that he not only be at Redskins PArk but that he be a leader. If Jeremy JArmon was absent, we'd still be disappointed and we'd still say he has a lot to learn about the new system, but no one expects him to be a team leader. Can you imagine Vince Wilfork or Ngata missing mini-camps in New England or Baltimore? Not likely. Can you imagine them missing mini-camps with a completely new coaching staff and scheme in place? No way! Then try to imagine them ALSO being the highest paid players on their teams having just accepted a 21M bonus check a few weeks earlier!. It is unheard of!

[1niksder]

He's not legally wrong; he's just an a$$hole—and a bad teammate. (And I wouldn't fine him for being a bad teammate, either!)

That was wrong... he is what he is but Rules are Rules

AH doesn't have to be there until he has to be there. He did the same thing last year, he can't show up like he did last year though.

I'm glad he's not around for the Voluntary work, for all the reason everyone says he should be there. If he is doing everything he needs to do to be ready for training camp and the upcoming season then I don't see a problem. The rumor is Haynesworth doesn't want to play NT. Does anyone know why he doesn't want to play NT? I haven't heard a reason attributed to AH for not wanting to play NT, yet that's the rumor.

The facts are:
1. Fat Albert said he knows nothing about NT because he has never played there, but had talked to the coaches and would see how things go.
2. The Redskins have a no non-sense head coach and the full support of the GM, as a team they understand they have to keep the man spending the money out of the loop and ever one knows Shanahan will run the team the way he wants to run the team.
3. Mike Shanahan and his "my way or the highway" approach led him to hire a defensive coordinator with a "my way because there is no highway" approach.

This would have lead to Haynesworth running around Ashburn all off-season complaining about not being able to play the way he played to reach the pro bowl... if the rumors are true. If the rumors aren't true... when training camp opens the Redskins best DL from 2009 will be third on the depth chart at both NT, DT and DE.

If the rumors are true the team building and chemistry that everyone says he is hurting, wouldn't be taking the roots that they are. A lot of players and fans agreed when he called out the DC last season, because they agreed he could have been used better. With him not there and not throwing temper tantrums and not pouting to the media, the players only have one side to choose.

Albert Haynesworth will show up for mandatory workouts and be a starting defensive lineman for the Redskins... He'll play wherever Shanahan and Hasslet tells him to. He won't have to like it but he won't have a choice once the season starts. Before the season starts or after it is over, if he's not happy he can buy his way out and go play where ever he lands.

Here's what Haslett thinks about who the top player is in his scheme:

"Just the unknown of where you’re coming from, who’s blitzing, who’s not blitzing. You can just do so many things out of it that you can’t do out of a four-man line. Now, if you got great four-man line people, then you play that." He adds, "There’s no reason you can’t go 3-4, 4-3. I’ve played in both, coached in both, been successful in both. I think its just the type of players you have. I think the cornerstone of the team on defense is Brian Orakpo. He had 11 sacks last year, rushed 200 some times. In this defense, we’ll rush 600-700 times.""

At this point he would be more drama then needed in Ashburn, with what they are trying to do out there.

[VetSkinsFan]

He's not legally wrong; he's just an a$$hole—and a bad teammate. (And I wouldn't fine him for being a bad teammate, either!)

That was wrong... he is what he is but Rules are Rules

AH doesn't have to be there until he has to be there. He did the same thing last year, he can't show up like he did last year though.

I'm glad he's not around for the Voluntary work, for all the reason everyone says he should be there. If he is doing everything he needs to do to be ready for training camp and the upcoming season then I don't see a problem. The rumor is Haynesworth doesn't want to play NT. Does anyone know why he doesn't want to play NT? I haven't heard a reason attributed to AH for not wanting to play NT, yet that's the rumor.

The facts are:
1. Fat Albert said he knows nothing about NT because he has never played there, but had talked to the coaches and would see how things go.
2. The Redskins have a no non-sense head coach and the full support of the GM, as a team they understand they have to keep the man spending the money out of the loop and ever one knows Shanahan will run the team the way he wants to run the team.
3. Mike Shanahan and his "my way or the highway" approach led him to hire a defensive coordinator with a "my way because there is no highway" approach.

This would have lead to Haynesworth running around Ashburn all off-season complaining about not being able to play the way he played to reach the pro bowl... if the rumors are true. If the rumors aren't true... when training camp opens the Redskins best DL from 2009 will be third on the depth chart at both NT, DT and DE.

If the rumors are true the team building and chemistry that everyone says he is hurting, wouldn't be taking the roots that they are. A lot of players and fans agreed when he called out the DC last season, because they agreed he could have been used better. With him not there and not throwing temper tantrums and not pouting to the media, the players only have one side to choose.

Albert Haynesworth will show up for mandatory workouts and be a starting defensive lineman for the Redskins... He'll play wherever Shanahan and Hasslet tells him to. He won't have to like it but he won't have a choice once the season starts. Before the season starts or after it is over, if he's not happy he can buy his way out and go play where ever he lands.

Here's what Haslett thinks about who the top player is in his scheme:

"Just the unknown of where you’re coming from, who’s blitzing, who’s not blitzing. You can just do so many things out of it that you can’t do out of a four-man line. Now, if you got great four-man line people, then you play that." He adds, "There’s no reason you can’t go 3-4, 4-3. I’ve played in both, coached in both, been successful in both. I think its just the type of players you have. I think the cornerstone of the team on defense is Brian Orakpo. He had 11 sacks last year, rushed 200 some times. In this defense, we’ll rush 600-700 times.""

At this point he would be more drama then needed in Ashburn, with what they are trying to do out there.

..but, but, but.....he's not THERE!!!!! The media says he should be there...

[PulpExposure]

As an employee of a international corporation, I hold firmly to the definitions of mandatory and voluntary, and I hold my direct reports to those definitions. In my opinion, I see no idea why a football player should be held to different standards. If it's truly mandatory, make it so.

Perhaps. But at the same time, that's peer pressure. It's still not mandatory according to the terms of his employment.

Very few, if there even is anyone, are claiming that Haynesworth's presence should be mandatory, as in he should face penalties or a reduced contract if he doesn't show. What most people have in mind, myself included, is that it isn't just Haynesworth's business if he decides to workout and practice with the team or not. In his actions he is clearly hurting team chemistry at a crucial time, with a new coach and new organization in place. He is missing an opportunity to clear his own reputation after publicly calling out his coaches last season and acting like a child at times, throwing temper tantrums or pouting to the media. His actions are also betraying his attitude toward the 4-12 season that this team just had: whether he likes it or not, what his actions are saying is that he does not believe himself to have been a part of the problem and that he's not 100% on board to work together with his teammates to find the solution.

All these things are being broadcast loud and clear to his coaches, teammates, and the fans. So the latter have every right to blast him publicly, even if Haynesworth retains a technical recourse to the definition of "voluntary." I'll grant him that: yes, the practices are not mandatory, and Haynesworth is within his rights to work out somewhere else. He's not legally wrong; he's just an a$$hole—and a bad teammate. (And I wouldn't fine him for being a bad teammate, either!)

Sure, I agree with all that. He should be there with his teammates; he's pretty much proven to be a selfish jerk that he's not. But there's no requirement for him to be there, besides just being a good teammate. It's entirely voluntary attendance.

[Countertrey]

I just don't know who you are debating with, Pulp... no one has said otherwise... including the FO.

Fans are simply pointing out that he is a whiney, sef-absorbed, narcisistic, primadona... and his team mates are putting pressure on him to show up.

Hey, if he wants to be a pariah, that's his call completely...

[PulpExposure]

I just don't know who you are debating with, Pulp... no one has said otherwise... including the FO.

Fans are simply pointing out that he is a whiney, sef-absorbed, narcisistic, primadona... and his team mates are putting pressure on him to show up.

Hey, if he wants to be a pariah, that's his call completely...

Just disagreeing with this sentence:

I don't want players who hold too firmly to the dictionary definition of 'mandatory' and 'voluntary.' To me, they're just hiding behind those words.

To me, that blurs the line too much. If it's voluntary, it's voluntary. Go, and be a good teammate. Don't go, and be a selfish jerk. But it's their call.

[crazyhorse1]

I said from day one this would be a bad signing

I guess we'll just have to take your word for that.

As dominant as he is, he needs to be ousted from this team asap.

Shanahan's been pretty consistent in his statements that Haynsworth is NOT being traded, so I wouldn't hold my breath quite yet...

Despite the fact that Shanahan has already tried to trade him at least once and most believe there have been multiple trade talks, just no very good offers for him. During the draft it was reported a 3rd rounder was the most anyone would offer. Can't blame Shanahan for turning that down. Although, right now, a 3rd rounder is looking pretty good.

At this point, Haynesworth would have to go to the Pro Bowl a few years in a row to make up for the cost of his contract and poor leadership/work ethic he has shown so far. But I doubt he makes even one Pro Bowl for this team.

I don't believe Shanny tried to trade him, that there have been talks, or that anyone would have the gaul to offer a third round pick. What are your sources?

[crazyhorse1]

If AH is not in shape and able to give 100% when he shows up, I would make him a bench warmer for the rest of his contract. Either you are a team player or you are not.

Since I'm old and grumpy, I'll speak the truth. Nobody is a team player. Nobody. People play at being team players to get along and make a buck.
AH only does what he has to, like everyone else. Daniels has to be there--to make the team. AH doesn't, and his contract says he doesn't.

I think you are EXACTLY wrong. In the modern era of free agency football, players who deserve it almost always get their money. The team with the lowest payroll has plenty of well paid players. Then there are a bunch of teams who are right up near the salary cap with their payrolls. So almost all 32 teams are very competitive financially and on the field.

SO, what separates the playoff teams from the 6-10's and 8-8's of the league? Talent? Nope. Money? Nope. Fan base? Nope. The difference is very small. It is the cohesiveness between teammates and coaches. If the players have solid leadership, respect and work together to build momentum through the season they can exceed expectations. They have the trust in each other to overcome a 14 point deficit in the 4th quarter and win a game. They have the discipline not to let an easier game slip (like Skins vs. Lions last season).

I say once you have a decent foundation of coaches and talented players to build from, then the WHOLE difference between 6-10 and 10-6 is the leadership, work ethic, unselfishness and trust teammates and coaches have each other. That's it in a nutshell.

and Crazyhorse, if I believed the NFL was the way you describe it, I wouldn't be a fan anymore.

Neither college players or professionals are boys. They're trying to earn a living and/or meet personal goals. They're not fans. When players are traded, they play just as hard for their new teams as they played for their old. What's more, they always try to work together-- they'll be cut if they don't. Further, second stringers always hope the guys in front of them screw up or get sidelined or traded. It's human nature and business as usual. Tacklers worry about the number of tackles they make, runners worry about their yards. If they don't get their tackles or yards, they're depressed or angry for a week whether the team has won or not. They're also happy if they do well, even if the team doesn't.

I went far enough in football and basketball to know that the above is true. I'm not saying they don't want to win every game. They do. It's just that winning is not their top priority. Winning is a top priority for the coaches only. They'll be fired if they don't win. It's also usual for only first stringers to even like their coaches. Players on the bench traditionally think the coaches who put them there are idiots.

All the rah rah stuff is bogus, an act. Every player is a Haynesworth at the core, if he can get away with it. Most can't. Some need to practice-- quarterbacks more than others. Some not so much. Some can't get in shape unless they go to camp, others can. Some work out better on their own than with others. Some players are annoyed by the rah rah stuff because they see rah rah boys as brown nosers, trying to impress coaches with something other than their ability.

When I played, I used to like to take shots at them-- just to demonstrate they were all mouth, no play.

The players I respected were the nasty ones taking care of business, shutting their mouths and trying to cream me. The near psychopaths-- not a naturally cooperative bone in their bodies-- who were as influenced in attitude by the coaches about as much as were the goal posts.

[VetSkinsFan]

I don't believe it Crazyhorse. Of course athletes have personal goals, it's silly to suggest otherwise. But to say athletes don't but in to the team philosophy is silly. The cohesion of the team is the deciding factor IMO, which is the individuals putting the team effort and focus first.

[SkinsJock]

For the most part, I do not agree or see much sense in posts from crazyhorse1, but I will agree with some of what he is saying

I have met 2 Redskins and had the opportunity to have more than a few discussions with both. One was an offensive lineman on the 1972 team and the other was considered one of the leaders of our beloved Hogs. Both were very clear that we fans did not understand how much of a 'business' the NFL is and how little the rah rah stuff and 'team cohesiveness' mean't, especially on teams that were not winning - they understood that they had roles to play but were not nearly as interested in wins and losses as they were in just doing their jobs as well if not better than they and their position or line coaches thought they could

they both respected their Head coaches but they did not like them

they both also felt that the fans and the media had little to no real idea of what it was like to be a part of the NFL and have to play no matter how much pain you might be in due to an injury or whatever - they expected to win games but they were really only 'driven' or motivated to be a part of a franchise in the NFL and getting paid to do their job - players are really only motivated to continue to earn money playing in the NFL



Haynesworth is hopefully going to be able to be help our defense be more effective this season or he will not be playing here for much longer - but that is really up to him and how much he wants it - it really is not going to matter much how much he and Shanahan like each other - each is only interested in what is good for themselves and their own agenda

[1niksder]

Haynesworth is hopefully going to be able to be help our defense be more effective this season or he will not be playing here for much longer - but that is really up to him and how much he wants it - it really is not going to matter much how much he and Shanahan like each other - each is only interested in what is good for themselves and their own agenda

For some odd reason ch1 has been making a lot sense this off-season, still comes to the wrong conclusion most times but has been making a lot of sense.

Haynesworth WILL help the Redskins this year as he did last year, hopefully he'll be in better shape and focused on his stated goal of returning to pro-bowl form (a personal goal). I'm not sure he or the front office knows if they want him here past this year, and it won't be known until the season plays out. If he excels in the scheme and doesn't want to stay, then he'll be gone (a personal choice), if he doesn't like the scheme - he'll want to go (another choice solely up to him). Shanahan and Allen re-did his bonus pay out so when AH looks back at the 2010 season and determines what goals (personal and team) were met and what wasn't, he'll make his personal decision knowing should he choice to leave he need to use his personal bank account to do so. If they want him out they'll have as many suitors as Haynesworth effort to meet his 2010 personal goals will attract.

It's win-win for the FO.... It TBD for Fat Albert.

[SkinsJock]

Haynesworth is hopefully going to be able to be help our defense be more effective this season or he will not be playing here for much longer - but that is really up to him and how much he wants it - it really is not going to matter much how much he and Shanahan like each other

Haynesworth WILL help the Redskins this year as he did last year, hopefully he'll be in better shape and focused on his stated goal of returning to pro-bowl form (a personal goal). I'm not sure he or the front office knows if they want him here past this year, and it won't be known until the season plays out. If he excels in the scheme and doesn't want to stay, then he'll be gone (a personal choice), if he doesn't like the scheme - he'll want to go (another choice solely up to him). Shanahan and Allen re-did his bonus pay out so when AH looks back at the 2010 season and determines what goals (personal and team) were met and what wasn't, he'll make his personal decision knowing should he choice to leave he need to use his personal bank account to do so. If they want him out they'll have as many suitors as Haynesworth effort to meet his 2010 personal goals will attract.

It's win-win for the FO.... It TBD for Fat Albert.

thanks for putting it so well - that's why I'm not going to get too up or down about all this 'reported' stuff and Haynesworth not being here for 'voluntary workouts' - let's let it play out and see what happens - his being here and thinking he would be better served working out on his own would be just as harmful as what he's now doing IMO

this guy is a force and hopefully he wants to come in to camp AND play this season in better condition than he showed last season - how is that not a good thing for both sides?

[Chris Luva Luva]

Phillip posted on the ES boards and had this to say...

[quote="Philip Daniels]Just wanted to drop in and say that I have read a lot of the comments on here and some of the fans on here really do believe everything that they read. Articles tend to leave things out and when you talk general stuff sometimes it comes out a different way. I am not upset with Albert at all but the whole team would love for him to be here with us getting ready to win a championship. When a reporter asks a question, we answer it but sometimes that answer is twisted in so many ways. None of the good stuff you say ever comes out in the article. They chop your words as they see fit and in the best way to sell papers or go public. Albert is a key part of the team and he will be ready to go. Just wanted to clear things up a little for the people who believe everything that writers put out there. Like the old saying goes: Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see.[/quote]

So basically, as ey and everyone else that lives the NFL, it's a non-issue. It's just crap the media parades around to get panties bunched up and the majority of you are wearing thongs. [/quote]

[VetSkinsFan]

Phillip posted on the ES boards and had this to say...

Just wanted to drop in and say that I have read a lot of the comments on here and some of the fans on here really do believe everything that they read. Articles tend to leave things out and when you talk general stuff sometimes it comes out a different way. I am not upset with Albert at all but the whole team would love for him to be here with us getting ready to win a championship. When a reporter asks a question, we answer it but sometimes that answer is twisted in so many ways. None of the good stuff you say ever comes out in the article. They chop your words as they see fit and in the best way to sell papers or go public. Albert is a key part of the team and he will be ready to go. Just wanted to clear things up a little for the people who believe everything that writers put out there. Like the old saying goes: Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see.

So basically, as ey and everyone else that lives the NFL, it's a non-issue. It's just crap the media parades around to get panties bunched up and the majority of you are wearing thongs.

Thanks... I shouldn't be hungry for a week now, Chris...