Page 5 of 8
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:00 am
by Deadskins
Irn-Bru wrote:There have been a lot of complaints that Shanahan could have gotten Haynesworth to play (and stay motivated) if he was a better coach. People saying that "motivation doesn't have to come at the expense of discipline."
But . . .
What if Shanahan
was getting about as much motivation out of Haynesworth as was possible given the circumstances?

He actually did yield to a pretty large number of Haynesworth's requests: we didn't see him in the 3-4 base package, he played primarily on passing downs — I mean, short of changing the defensive scheme on account of one player's personal demands, what else could they have done for him?
And it wasn't all negative reinforcement. There were several reports that, when Haynesworth had a good week in practice, Shanahan pointed that out in front of the team. He also got a ton of credit for his play against Chicago. A player should be able to feed off of legitimate praise like that . . .
Just a thought.
That's valid. There are some guys that are just not going to get it, ever. But I still feel that Shanahan could have handled AH better from the start, and the concessions he did make were too late in the process to make a difference. This relationship was doomed from the start.
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:27 am
by KazooSkinsFan
Deadskins wrote:That's valid. There are some guys that are just not going to get it, ever. But I still feel that Shanahan could have handled AH better from the start, and the concessions he did make were too late in the process to make a difference. This relationship was doomed from the start.
What should he done in the start? The first thing he did was offer to let him go if he didn't want to play in the 3-4. AH passed. He also passed on going to voluntary OTAs, then manditory OTA's, then showed up out of shape. How is any of that on Shannahan? Do you sit in your chair at work telling your manager you'll work when they motivate you and if they don't you just share responsibility?
Also, who else could have remotely gotten away with what AH has and why should he be on his own set of rules and it's STILL (according to you) on Shannahan?
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 12:13 pm
by Deadskins
KazooSkinsFan wrote:Deadskins wrote:That's valid. There are some guys that are just not going to get it, ever. But I still feel that Shanahan could have handled AH better from the start, and the concessions he did make were too late in the process to make a difference. This relationship was doomed from the start.
What should he done in the start? The first thing he did was offer to let him go if he didn't want to play in the 3-4. AH passed. He also passed on going to voluntary OTAs, then manditory OTA's, then showed up out of shape. How is any of that on Shannahan? Do you sit in your chair at work telling your manager you'll work when they motivate you and if they don't you just share responsibility?
Also, who else could have remotely gotten away with what AH has and why should he be on his own set of rules and it's STILL (according to you) on Shannahan?
You keep trying to portray me as saying this is all on Shanahan, but I've never said that. In fact, I've always maintained that Al started this mess, and it dates back to before Shanahan was even hired. That doesn't mean that Shanahan has handled the situation as well as he might have. This is not my opinion alone, there are several other members here who share that view, and have said so in this thread and others as well. At this point I just want AH gone like everyone else, but I'm pretty sure we've ruined any value we might get for him, by the actions of MS. We'll be lucky if we can get any return on our investment at this point, and it didn't have to be that way, IMO. Like CLL said, it's a shame.
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 12:32 pm
by Irn-Bru
Deadskins wrote:That's valid. There are some guys that are just not going to get it, ever. But I still feel that Shanahan could have handled AH better from the start, and the concessions he did make were too late in the process to make a difference. This relationship was doomed from the start.
Perhaps, but as Kaz points out they were extra careful to be upfront and clear with Haynesworth on their plans and expectations, and they gave him a no-strings-attached out if he wanted it. When Haynesworth accepted those expectations and deposited his check, the
only reason the relationship could have been "doomed" at that point was if he did so in bad faith. And it's pretty clear that it was in bad faith. So that's why I see this as being an almost-entirely-Haynesworth problem.
(And it's also one of the main reasons I really don't buy the arguments on the board that, e.g., Shanahan had too much of an ego during the whole conditioning test problem.)
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:23 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
Deadskins wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:Deadskins wrote:That's valid. There are some guys that are just not going to get it, ever. But I still feel that Shanahan could have handled AH better from the start, and the concessions he did make were too late in the process to make a difference. This relationship was doomed from the start.
What should he done in the start? The first thing he did was offer to let him go if he didn't want to play in the 3-4. AH passed. He also passed on going to voluntary OTAs, then manditory OTA's, then showed up out of shape. How is any of that on Shannahan? Do you sit in your chair at work telling your manager you'll work when they motivate you and if they don't you just share responsibility?
Also, who else could have remotely gotten away with what AH has and why should he be on his own set of rules and it's STILL (according to you) on Shannahan?
You keep trying to portray me as saying this is all on Shanahan, but I've never said that. In fact, I've always maintained that Al started this mess, and it dates back to before Shanahan was even hired.
That doesn't mean that Shanahan has handled the situation as well as he might have. This is not my opinion alone, there are several other members here who share that view, and have said so in this thread and others as well. At this point I just want AH gone like everyone else, but I'm pretty sure
we've ruined any value we might get for him, by the actions of MS. We'll be lucky if we can get any return on our investment at this point, and
it didn't have to be that way, IMO. Like CLL said, it's a shame.
None of this answers the question. You keep repeating statements like the yellow I highlighted. Focus on the questions:
- What "specifically" did or didn't Shannahan do that could have made the situation better? You keep making the statement without backing it up with what he could have done.
- Clearly other players could not have gotten away with what AH has and yet you're demanding more from Shannahan (see the first question). Why should AH be at that level of playing by his own rules?
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:24 pm
by VetSkinsFan
Irn-Bru wrote:There have been a lot of complaints that Shanahan could have gotten Haynesworth to play (and stay motivated) if he was a better coach. People saying that "motivation doesn't have to come at the expense of discipline."
But . . .
What if Shanahan
was getting about as much motivation out of Haynesworth as was possible given the circumstances?

He actually did yield to a pretty large number of Haynesworth's requests: we didn't see him in the 3-4 base package, he played primarily on passing downs — I mean, short of changing the defensive scheme on account of one player's personal demands, what else could they have done for him?
And it wasn't all negative reinforcement. There were several reports that, when Haynesworth had a good week in practice, Shanahan pointed that out in front of the team. He also got a ton of credit for his play against Chicago. A player should be able to feed off of legitimate praise like that . . .
Just a thought.
I thought no one gave credit to Sally Jenkins pieces...
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:27 pm
by Irn-Bru
VetSkinsFan wrote:Irn-Bru wrote:There have been a lot of complaints that Shanahan could have gotten Haynesworth to play (and stay motivated) if he was a better coach. People saying that "motivation doesn't have to come at the expense of discipline."
But . . .
What if Shanahan
was getting about as much motivation out of Haynesworth as was possible given the circumstances?

He actually did yield to a pretty large number of Haynesworth's requests: we didn't see him in the 3-4 base package, he played primarily on passing downs — I mean, short of changing the defensive scheme on account of one player's personal demands, what else could they have done for him?
And it wasn't all negative reinforcement. There were several reports that, when Haynesworth had a good week in practice, Shanahan pointed that out in front of the team. He also got a ton of credit for his play against Chicago. A player should be able to feed off of legitimate praise like that . . .
Just a thought.
I thought no one gave credit to Sally Jenkins pieces...
I don't, but her piece gave me that idea.
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:30 pm
by VetSkinsFan
KazooSkinsFan wrote:Deadskins wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:Deadskins wrote:That's valid. There are some guys that are just not going to get it, ever. But I still feel that Shanahan could have handled AH better from the start, and the concessions he did make were too late in the process to make a difference. This relationship was doomed from the start.
What should he done in the start? The first thing he did was offer to let him go if he didn't want to play in the 3-4. AH passed. He also passed on going to voluntary OTAs, then manditory OTA's, then showed up out of shape. How is any of that on Shannahan? Do you sit in your chair at work telling your manager you'll work when they motivate you and if they don't you just share responsibility?
Also, who else could have remotely gotten away with what AH has and why should he be on his own set of rules and it's STILL (according to you) on Shannahan?
You keep trying to portray me as saying this is all on Shanahan, but I've never said that. In fact, I've always maintained that Al started this mess, and it dates back to before Shanahan was even hired.
That doesn't mean that Shanahan has handled the situation as well as he might have. This is not my opinion alone, there are several other members here who share that view, and have said so in this thread and others as well. At this point I just want AH gone like everyone else, but I'm pretty sure
we've ruined any value we might get for him, by the actions of MS. We'll be lucky if we can get any return on our investment at this point, and
it didn't have to be that way, IMO. Like CLL said, it's a shame.
None of this answers the question. You keep repeating statements like the yellow I highlighted. Focus on the questions:
- What "specifically" did or didn't Shannahan do that could have made the situation better? You keep making the statement without backing it up with what he could have done.
- Clearly other players could not have gotten away with what AH has and yet you're demanding more from Shannahan (see the first question). Why should AH be at that level of playing by his own rules?
Shanahan toyed with him and his emotions. If he was that upset, big Al shoulda got the 'get on board' or 'gtfo' and NOT string it along until freaking week 13. That's what pisses me off about Shanahan. He's let this situation string along since freakin April. APRIL! He thought he could egotrip Haynesworth from the beginning (whoever really thinks it took Al 10 legitimate days to pass that test I still believe is off their rocker) and continued battle ego vs ego the whole freakin season. He should have either shut Al down in the beginning or shut up and let Al play like Al can play. He did neither. He dueled egos and it hurt the team the whole time. And it's the coach's job to NOT let that happen, whether by sitting/cutting him or swallowing his pride and get that guy with ability, a potential GAMECHANGER to play to his potential.
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:38 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
VetSkinsFan wrote:Shanahan toyed with him and his emotions. If he was that upset, big Al shoulda got the 'get on board' or 'gtfo' and NOT string it along until freaking week 13. That's what pisses me off about Shanahan. He's let this situation string along since freakin April. APRIL! He thought he could egotrip Haynesworth from the beginning (whoever really thinks it took Al 10 legitimate days to pass that test I still believe is off their rocker) and continued battle ego vs ego the whole freakin season. He should have either shut Al down in the beginning or shut up and let Al play like Al can play. He did neither. He dueled egos and it hurt the team the whole time. And it's the coach's job to NOT let that happen, whether by sitting/cutting him or swallowing his pride and get that guy with ability, a potential GAMECHANGER to play to his potential.
This are all subjective accusations. I'm not asking asking for specifics on what actions he could have taken. Specific
actions. Not "he was on an ego trip" which is just begging the question.
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:46 pm
by DarthMonk
Deadskins wrote:DarthMonk wrote:Deadskins wrote:Skinsfan55 wrote:Schottenheimer couldn't get Jeff George to play and he was the starting QB. He broke down game film with him personally and STILL couldn't get through to George.
Sometimes you just get a bad egg... like Haynesworth
Um, no. Banks was Marty's QB, not George.
He inheritied George just as Shanahan inheritied Haynesworth. And he won with Banks not with George.
DarthMonk
But Marty was in full charge of the team, and did not play George by The Danny's decree as Norv had done before him.
But/And much like Shanahan he played George for a while, not, as you say, by Danny's decree, then tossed him by the wayside, and moved on. The comparison is with Shanny, not Norv. Very similar in this regard. Shanny's in charge too, right?
BTW - Shotty was both Danny's best hire and worst fire. Payroll from 100 million to 53 million. 22 new players. 13 rookies. 0-5 and then 8-3 with a QB named Banks. We mighta been 14-2 a few years later with a QB named Rivers and a ton of picks. OMFG did Danny blow that one!
DarthMonk
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:47 pm
by Deadskins
KazooSkinsFan wrote:Deadskins wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:Deadskins wrote:That's valid. There are some guys that are just not going to get it, ever. But I still feel that Shanahan could have handled AH better from the start, and the concessions he did make were too late in the process to make a difference. This relationship was doomed from the start.
What should he done in the start? The first thing he did was offer to let him go if he didn't want to play in the 3-4. AH passed. He also passed on going to voluntary OTAs, then manditory OTA's, then showed up out of shape. How is any of that on Shannahan? Do you sit in your chair at work telling your manager you'll work when they motivate you and if they don't you just share responsibility?
Also, who else could have remotely gotten away with what AH has and why should he be on his own set of rules and it's STILL (according to you) on Shannahan?
You keep trying to portray me as saying this is all on Shanahan, but I've never said that. In fact, I've always maintained that Al started this mess, and it dates back to before Shanahan was even hired.
That doesn't mean that Shanahan has handled the situation as well as he might have. This is not my opinion alone, there are several other members here who share that view, and have said so in this thread and others as well. At this point I just want AH gone like everyone else, but I'm pretty sure
we've ruined any value we might get for him, by the actions of MS. We'll be lucky if we can get any return on our investment at this point, and
it didn't have to be that way, IMO. Like CLL said, it's a shame.
None of this answers the question. You keep repeating statements like the yellow I highlighted. Focus on the questions:
- What "specifically" did or didn't Shannahan do that could have made the situation better? You keep making the statement without backing it up with what he could have done.
- Clearly other players could not have gotten away with what AH has and yet you're demanding more from Shannahan (see the first question). Why should AH be at that level of playing by his own rules?
He didn't have to make such a big deal out of the whole conditioning test.
He could have let the matter drop after the conditioning test, but he continued to goad him at every turn.
He didn't have to make him play the 4th pre-season game as he did with every other veteran.
He could have easily let Haynesworth save face, and still been seen as the tough disciplinarian at many points, but he clearly had something to prove. I have no way to prove it, but I'm sure Joe Gibbs would have handled the whole situation differently.
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:48 pm
by VetSkinsFan
KazooSkinsFan wrote:VetSkinsFan wrote:Shanahan toyed with him and his emotions. If he was that upset, big Al shoulda got the 'get on board' or 'gtfo' and NOT string it along until freaking week 13. That's what pisses me off about Shanahan. He's let this situation string along since freakin April. APRIL! He thought he could egotrip Haynesworth from the beginning (whoever really thinks it took Al 10 legitimate days to pass that test I still believe is off their rocker) and continued battle ego vs ego the whole freakin season. He should have either shut Al down in the beginning or shut up and let Al play like Al can play. He did neither. He dueled egos and it hurt the team the whole time. And it's the coach's job to NOT let that happen, whether by sitting/cutting him or swallowing his pride and get that guy with ability, a potential GAMECHANGER to play to his potential.
This are all subjective accusations. I'm not asking asking for specifics on what actions he could have taken. Specific
actions. Not "he was on an ego trip" which is just begging the question.
I'll highlight since you skimmed.
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:52 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
Deadskins wrote:He could have easily let Haynesworth save face, and still been seen as the tough disciplinarian at many points, but he clearly had something to prove. I have no way to prove it, but I'm sure Joe Gibbs would have handled the whole situation differently.
This is still mostly subjective, I'm starting to wonder if you understand what the difference between subjective and objective is. But regardless, no one else would have been able to have this standard applied to them and it was ongoingly clear AH was not ready to play NFL football. Why should Shannahan allow AH to just play quietly when he was ready when again no one else could do that? That's seriously what you expected from him?
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:53 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
VetSkinsFan wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:VetSkinsFan wrote:Shanahan toyed with him and his emotions. If he was that upset, big Al shoulda got the 'get on board' or 'gtfo' and NOT string it along until freaking week 13. That's what pisses me off about Shanahan. He's let this situation string along since freakin April. APRIL! He thought he could egotrip Haynesworth from the beginning (whoever really thinks it took Al 10 legitimate days to pass that test I still believe is off their rocker) and continued battle ego vs ego the whole freakin season. He should have either shut Al down in the beginning or shut up and let Al play like Al can play. He did neither. He dueled egos and it hurt the team the whole time. And it's the coach's job to NOT let that happen, whether by sitting/cutting him or swallowing his pride and get that guy with ability, a potential GAMECHANGER to play to his potential.
This are all subjective accusations. I'm not asking asking for specifics on what actions he could have taken. Specific
actions. Not "he was on an ego trip" which is just begging the question.
I'll highlight since you skimmed.
How exactly was he supposed to "shut Al down in the begining" when he was under contract to get $42 mil he passed on walking away from for his freedom? What does that even mean?
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:57 pm
by Deadskins
DarthMonk wrote:Deadskins wrote:DarthMonk wrote:Deadskins wrote:Skinsfan55 wrote:Schottenheimer couldn't get Jeff George to play and he was the starting QB. He broke down game film with him personally and STILL couldn't get through to George.
Sometimes you just get a bad egg... like Haynesworth
Um, no. Banks was Marty's QB, not George.
He inheritied George just as Shanahan inheritied Haynesworth. And he won with Banks not with George.
DarthMonk
But Marty was in full charge of the team, and did not play George by The Danny's decree as Norv had done before him.
But/And much like Shanahan he played George for a while, not, as you say, by Danny's decree, then tossed him by the wayside, and moved on. The comparison is with Shanny, not Norv. Very similar in this regard. Shanny's in charge too, right?
BTW - Shotty was both Danny's best hire and worst fire. Payroll from 100 million to 53 million. 22 new players. 13 rookies. 0-5 and then 8-3 with a QB named Banks. We mighta been 14-2 a few years later with a QB named Rivers and a ton of picks. OMFG did Danny blow that one!
DarthMonk
I think we're in agreement here on everything except the George situation being similar to the Haynesworth one.
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:00 pm
by VetSkinsFan
KazooSkinsFan wrote:VetSkinsFan wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:VetSkinsFan wrote:Shanahan toyed with him and his emotions. If he was that upset, big Al shoulda got the 'get on board' or 'gtfo' and NOT string it along until freaking week 13. That's what pisses me off about Shanahan. He's let this situation string along since freakin April. APRIL! He thought he could egotrip Haynesworth from the beginning (whoever really thinks it took Al 10 legitimate days to pass that test I still believe is off their rocker) and continued battle ego vs ego the whole freakin season. He should have either shut Al down in the beginning or shut up and let Al play like Al can play. He did neither. He dueled egos and it hurt the team the whole time. And it's the coach's job to NOT let that happen, whether by sitting/cutting him or swallowing his pride and get that guy with ability, a potential GAMECHANGER to play to his potential.
This are all subjective accusations. I'm not asking asking for specifics on what actions he could have taken. Specific
actions. Not "he was on an ego trip" which is just begging the question.
I'll highlight since you skimmed.
How exactly was he supposed to "shut Al down in the begining" when he was under contract to get $42 mil he passed on walking away from for his freedom? What does that even mean?
You don't understand what shutting Al down is? WOW, I'll simplify it for you.
If Al didn't play the way Shanahan wanted him to play, he should shut him down (not allow him to put a Redskins uniform on and play in the National Football League games that are predominantly played on Sundays, but sometimes played on Thursdays and Mondays). Shut him down could also suggest cutting him, but I am speculating that Dan Snyder wouldn't allow cutting him outright as a viable scenario.
Is this plain enough for you? I can
try to simplify it even more if necessary.
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:00 pm
by Deadskins
KazooSkinsFan wrote:Deadskins wrote:He could have easily let Haynesworth save face, and still been seen as the tough disciplinarian at many points, but he clearly had something to prove. I have no way to prove it, but I'm sure Joe Gibbs would have handled the whole situation differently.
This is still mostly subjective, I'm starting to wonder if you understand what the difference between subjective and objective is. But regardless, no one else would have been able to have this standard applied to them and it was ongoingly clear AH was not ready to play NFL football. Why should Shannahan allow AH to just play quietly when he was ready when again no one else could do that? That's seriously what you expected from him?
Well gee, since you cherrypicked the fourth sentence of my post, bypassing the three, specific, objective things I listed first, I can see why you might wonder that.

Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:06 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
VetSkinsFan wrote:Is this plain enough for you? I can try to simplify it even more if necessary.
I just wanted to say it. Let me just say I don't buy into paying a guy $42 mil guaranteed and following your plan. What Shannahan did was infinitely better then doing that. And it doesn't solve any of your objectives that somehow that would have saved the situation in any way or made AH more tradeable either. It just would have made camp quieter. And since everyone knew AH was a boob and was acting like one, I don't see how holding his feet to the fire of the contract he signed harmed anyone. Basically you solved nothing.
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:07 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
Deadskins wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:Deadskins wrote:He could have easily let Haynesworth save face, and still been seen as the tough disciplinarian at many points, but he clearly had something to prove. I have no way to prove it, but I'm sure Joe Gibbs would have handled the whole situation differently.
This is still mostly subjective, I'm starting to wonder if you understand what the difference between subjective and objective is. But regardless, no one else would have been able to have this standard applied to them and it was ongoingly clear AH was not ready to play NFL football. Why should Shannahan allow AH to just play quietly when he was ready when again no one else could do that? That's seriously what you expected from him?
Well gee, since you cherrypicked the fourth sentence of my post, bypassing the three, specific, objective things I listed first, I can see why you might wonder that.

My bad on the copy, but I actually meant to copy all four and my comment applied to all four. So that part wasn't my bad.
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:13 pm
by VetSkinsFan
KazooSkinsFan wrote:VetSkinsFan wrote:Is this plain enough for you? I can try to simplify it even more if necessary.
I just wanted to say it. Let me just say I don't buy into paying a guy $42 mil guaranteed and following your plan. What Shannahan did was infinitely better then doing that. And it doesn't solve any of your objectives that somehow that would have saved the situation in any way or made AH more tradeable either. It just would have made camp quieter. And since everyone knew AH was a boob and was acting like one, I don't see how holding his feet to the fire of the contract he signed harmed anyone. Basically you solved nothing.
Actually, it DOES solve everything.
You shut down (see above) Al, which halts the weekly ego tripping, which halts a lot of the weekly distractions.
You're actually suggesting all of the weekly drama was a BETTER scenario than putting Al in the closet and not giving him anything to stir up? By telling Al that he's riding the pine IN THE BEGINNING(which is my true irritant) until he meets Shanahan's criteria and that's the end of it DOESN'T eliminate the distractions and let the team worry about what's on the field? Seriously?
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:19 pm
by Deadskins
KazooSkinsFan wrote:Deadskins wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:Deadskins wrote:He could have easily let Haynesworth save face, and still been seen as the tough disciplinarian at many points, but he clearly had something to prove. I have no way to prove it, but I'm sure Joe Gibbs would have handled the whole situation differently.
This is still mostly subjective, I'm starting to wonder if you understand what the difference between subjective and objective is. But regardless, no one else would have been able to have this standard applied to them and it was ongoingly clear AH was not ready to play NFL football. Why should Shannahan allow AH to just play quietly when he was ready when again no one else could do that? That's seriously what you expected from him?
Well gee, since you cherrypicked the fourth sentence of my post, bypassing the three, specific, objective things I listed first, I can see why you might wonder that.

My bad on the copy, but I actually meant to copy all four and my comment applied to all four. So that part wasn't my bad.
So these three actions aren't specific and objective?
Deadskins wrote:He didn't have to make such a big deal out of the whole conditioning test.
He could have let the matter drop after the conditioning test, but he continued to goad him at every turn.
He didn't have to make him play the [entire] 4th pre-season game as he did with every other veteran.
Do
you understand the difference between subjective and objective?
20/20 Hindsight
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:25 pm
by GoSkins
Guys...seems a lot of you are looking in the rearview mirror and saying...if this, if that. Please stop. AH made a commitment to play for the Redskins and he didn't. I don't care how you paint this; it all gets back to AH not living up to the standards of being a professional football player. God knows he was given a lot of chances to change and he didn't. End of story.
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:26 pm
by SAP_Pete
This is 100% on fat, lazy Al. He never did give a crap about the team or his teammates. Maybe Shanahan could have handled the situation differently, but it's just window dressing a bad attitude.
From a star, or star paid player, I'd expect extra effort to learn new schemes (nope), be in top shape (nope), work with team mates to elevate their level of play (nope), and work constructively with your coaches (nope).
Even if you play on top of your game (nope) and don't really need the practice (haha), work in practice to help the other players improve (nope).
The idea of letting a player get away with all of that is just asinine in my book. It destroys team morale and undermines everybody's work ethic.
Good riddance, you fat lazy bum.
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:31 pm
by Countertrey
^ +1
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:34 pm
by Countertrey
^ +1