The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

fleetus wrote:The question is, is it possible he eventually sees enough of Haslett's scheme to win him over? Could he ever put his pride aside and buy into the program? If yes, then we should keep him

fleetus wrote:If Haynesworth is always going to be pouty and complain in the locker room and the media, then, I say, let's get value for him now

The choices are that both happen or only the second one does. If the quote per Nik works out, what are you going to do since they are both going to happen and you are saying we both keep and dump him?

First off, thanks 1Niksider, for the HAynesworth piece. I had read an excerpt of it before, but never the whole thing. However, since then, Haynesworth has said he will not report to workouts or mini-camp. So he only has himself to blame for everyone assuming the worst.

Kaz: Like I said, it is a fine line. So, as such, it all depends on the shades of gray we see from haynesworth. If I was the coach, I would sit down with him and say, "we want to put you in position to succeed and we recognize your talent to get into the backfield. But there are going to be times when we run a 3-4 and will need you to play 2 gap to free up Orakpo and others. Are you going to give us 100% in those situations too? Are you going to set an example and practice hard through the season?" If so, we keep him. If he hesitates for 1 second in his answer or says "but" then I trade him now.

fellaz/ladiez... haynesworth will be here next year, he isn't going anywhere. i jus spoke with bruce and he said "lpj, don't worry my man, he'll be here in great shape".. i laughed him out and said yea dude, whatever

fleetus wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

fleetus wrote:The question is, is it possible he eventually sees enough of Haslett's scheme to win him over? Could he ever put his pride aside and buy into the program? If yes, then we should keep him

fleetus wrote:If Haynesworth is always going to be pouty and complain in the locker room and the media, then, I say, let's get value for him now

The choices are that both happen or only the second one does. If the quote per Nik works out, what are you going to do since they are both going to happen and you are saying we both keep and dump him?

First off, thanks 1Niksider, for the HAynesworth piece. I had read an excerpt of it before, but never the whole thing. However, since then, Haynesworth has said he will not report to workouts or mini-camp. So he only has himself to blame for everyone assuming the worst.

Kaz: Like I said, it is a fine line. So, as such, it all depends on the shades of gray we see from haynesworth. If I was the coach, I would sit down with him and say, "we want to put you in position to succeed and we recognize your talent to get into the backfield. But there are going to be times when we run a 3-4 and will need you to play 2 gap to free up Orakpo and others. Are you going to give us 100% in those situations too? Are you going to set an example and practice hard through the season?" If so, we keep him. If he hesitates for 1 second in his answer or says "but" then I trade him now.

and I'll add, Shanahan may have already had this same conversation and not liked the answer he got. That would explain the efforts to trade Haynesworth. Or, it could all be overblown media hype and Shanahan isn't really trying to trade him.

Personally, I am sticking to my original prediction. If Haynesworth isn't in camp on Apr 16th, then he will be traded. Because there are several very talented DT's in the draft, some teams may be waiting to see how the 1st ten picks of the draft unfold before making a big offer to the Skins.

fleetus wrote:

fleetus wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

fleetus wrote:The question is, is it possible he eventually sees enough of Haslett's scheme to win him over? Could he ever put his pride aside and buy into the program? If yes, then we should keep him

fleetus wrote:If Haynesworth is always going to be pouty and complain in the locker room and the media, then, I say, let's get value for him now

The choices are that both happen or only the second one does. If the quote per Nik works out, what are you going to do since they are both going to happen and you are saying we both keep and dump him?

First off, thanks 1Niksider, for the HAynesworth piece. I had read an excerpt of it before, but never the whole thing. However, since then, Haynesworth has said he will not report to workouts or mini-camp. So he only has himself to blame for everyone assuming the worst.

Kaz: Like I said, it is a fine line. So, as such, it all depends on the shades of gray we see from haynesworth. If I was the coach, I would sit down with him and say, "we want to put you in position to succeed and we recognize your talent to get into the backfield. But there are going to be times when we run a 3-4 and will need you to play 2 gap to free up Orakpo and others. Are you going to give us 100% in those situations too? Are you going to set an example and practice hard through the season?" If so, we keep him. If he hesitates for 1 second in his answer or says "but" then I trade him now.

and I'll add, Shanahan may have already had this same conversation and not liked the answer he got. That would explain the efforts to trade Haynesworth. Or, it could all be overblown media hype and Shanahan isn't really trying to trade him.

Personally, I am sticking to my original prediction. If Haynesworth isn't in camp on Apr 16th, then he will be traded. Because there are several very talented DT's in the draft, some teams may be waiting to see how the 1st ten picks of the draft unfold before making a big offer to the Skins.

Nice way to hedge that one...in the future i expect an "I told you so" on this subject no matter what happens...

fleetus wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

fleetus wrote:The question is, is it possible he eventually sees enough of Haslett's scheme to win him over? Could he ever put his pride aside and buy into the program? If yes, then we should keep him

fleetus wrote:If Haynesworth is always going to be pouty and complain in the locker room and the media, then, I say, let's get value for him now

The choices are that both happen or only the second one does. If the quote per Nik works out, what are you going to do since they are both going to happen and you are saying we both keep and dump him?

First off, thanks 1Niksider, for the HAynesworth piece. I had read an excerpt of it before, but never the whole thing. However, since then, Haynesworth has said he will not report to workouts or mini-camp. So he only has himself to blame for everyone assuming the worst.

Kaz: Like I said, it is a fine line. So, as such, it all depends on the shades of gray we see from haynesworth. If I was the coach, I would sit down with him and say, "we want to put you in position to succeed and we recognize your talent to get into the backfield. But there are going to be times when we run a 3-4 and will need you to play 2 gap to free up Orakpo and others. Are you going to give us 100% in those situations too? Are you going to set an example and practice hard through the season?" If so, we keep him. If he hesitates for 1 second in his answer or says "but" then I trade him now.

Maybe I should have put a wink. Here you go, pretend I said this at the end of my post the first time.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

fleetus wrote:

fleetus wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

fleetus wrote:The question is, is it possible he eventually sees enough of Haslett's scheme to win him over? Could he ever put his pride aside and buy into the program? If yes, then we should keep him

fleetus wrote:If Haynesworth is always going to be pouty and complain in the locker room and the media, then, I say, let's get value for him now

The choices are that both happen or only the second one does. If the quote per Nik works out, what are you going to do since they are both going to happen and you are saying we both keep and dump him?

First off, thanks 1Niksider, for the HAynesworth piece. I had read an excerpt of it before, but never the whole thing. However, since then, Haynesworth has said he will not report to workouts or mini-camp. So he only has himself to blame for everyone assuming the worst.

Kaz: Like I said, it is a fine line. So, as such, it all depends on the shades of gray we see from haynesworth. If I was the coach, I would sit down with him and say, "we want to put you in position to succeed and we recognize your talent to get into the backfield. But there are going to be times when we run a 3-4 and will need you to play 2 gap to free up Orakpo and others. Are you going to give us 100% in those situations too? Are you going to set an example and practice hard through the season?" If so, we keep him. If he hesitates for 1 second in his answer or says "but" then I trade him now.

and I'll add, Shanahan may have already had this same conversation and not liked the answer he got. That would explain the efforts to trade Haynesworth. Or, it could all be overblown media hype and Shanahan isn't really trying to trade him.

Personally, I am sticking to my original prediction. If Haynesworth isn't in camp on Apr 16th, then he will be traded. Because there are several very talented DT's in the draft, some teams may be waiting to see how the 1st ten picks of the draft unfold before making a big offer to the Skins.

Nice way to hedge that one...in the future i expect an "I told you so" on this subject no matter what happens...

No hedge. If it was up to me, I told you what i would do. But since it is up to Shanahan, I told you what i think he will do. Pretty clearly stated too.

fleetus wrote:First off, thanks 1Niksider, for the HAynesworth piece. I had read an excerpt of it before, but never the whole thing. However, since then, Haynesworth has said he will not report to workouts or mini-camp. So he only has himself to blame for everyone assuming the worst.

I'm pretty sure what you read was part one which was written back in March. The quotes about the 3-4 came out last Friday, AFTER AH had said he would not be attending voluntary workouts, so your timeline maybe a little off. The first mini-camp is voluntary and that's doesn't change anything that Shanny and Fat Albert talked about on day one of the conditioning program

His no show for voluntary workouts are based on how he came into last year and where he wants to be this year, it has nothing to do with the 3-4 or the current coaching staff.

Fat Albert knows what it means to assume and he shouldn't be blamed for what others assume, when he has been open about everything that is being said. He assumed the Redskins would do what they said they would do if he signed with them last year and they didn't, you see how that turned out.

fleetus wrote:Kaz: Like I said, it is a fine line. So, as such, it all depends on the shades of gray we see from haynesworth.

Shades of Gray?
What gray area are we talking about? How many Redskins DL had more played more snaps than AH last year? You can assume there where a roster full of linemen that took more snaps but then again we are assuming, the actual data will shock those that quote 30% of the snaps and other ridiculousness that has been posted on the web. I'll make it easy... Name three DL with more 2009 defensive snaps as a D-lineman on the Redskins roster than AH

fleetus wrote: If I was the coach, I would sit down with him and say, "we want to put you in position to succeed and we recognize your talent to get into the backfield. But there are going to be times when we run a 3-4 and will need you to play 2 gap to free up Orakpo and others. Are you going to give us 100% in those situations too? Are you going to set an example and practice hard through the season?" If so, we keep him. If he hesitates for 1 second in his answer or says "but" then I trade him now.

You are ASSUMING the coaches haven't had this conversation with him when all reports state he has talked to the Head Coach, D-coordinator, and the D-line coach. If this hasn't come up in any of their conversations, I'll have to assume the Redskins would be better off with you as the coach.

Don't assume I meant Head coach, D-coordinator, or the D-line coach, I mean You can coach AH or trade him

perhaps a conglomerate of Fan-Coaches, this way we could get as many pessimistic opinions as possible. Losing Haynesgirth would be a major downgrade to the D-line, put as much talent on the field as possible bottom line. Remember a couple of years ago when our D-line was as bad as the o-line is now? Keep AH and set a standard for the D-linemen and Linebackers to live by for the next five years.

Andre Carter has a stated issues with the 3-4 defense, he doesn't like it and wasn't very good (by his standards). Is his name not coming up in trade talks because of his no-trade clause? If Albert Haynesworth is as bad as most say with all the complaining that he supposedly did/does and also not wanting to play in the 3-4 (although I haven't seen it quoted anywhere), wouldn't Carter coming off 11 sacks and his best performance ever bring in more than AH?

Carter rehab'd away from Redskins Park and nothing was said about it, he'll be at mini-camp but won't be able to participate fully.

Hanyesworth went back to what made him a Pro-bowler and said he is doing what he is doing to get back to that level.

They both said they will have a opened mind about the new 3-4 scheme yet one gets slammed for it and the other get's a pas.

Say what you want about Orakpo's four sacks in a game without Fat Albert, Brian is a beast... How many sacks did Carter have as a hands in the dirt 4-3 DE without AH?

1niksder wrote:

fleetus wrote:First off, thanks 1Niksider, for the HAynesworth piece. I had read an excerpt of it before, but never the whole thing. However, since then, Haynesworth has said he will not report to workouts or mini-camp. So he only has himself to blame for everyone assuming the worst.

I'm pretty sure what you read was part one which was written back in March. The quotes about the 3-4 came out last Friday, AFTER AH had said he would not be attending voluntary workouts, so your timeline maybe a little off. The first mini-camp is voluntary and that's doesn't change anything that Shanny and Fat Albert talked about on day one of the conditioning program

His no show for voluntary workouts are based on how he came into last year and where he wants to be this year, it has nothing to do with the 3-4 or the current coaching staff.

Fat Albert knows what it means to assume and he shouldn't be blamed for what others assume, when he has been open about everything that is being said. He assumed the Redskins would do what they said they would do if he signed with them last year and they didn't, you see how that turned out.

fleetus wrote:Kaz: Like I said, it is a fine line. So, as such, it all depends on the shades of gray we see from haynesworth.

Shades of Gray?
What gray area are we talking about? How many Redskins DL had more played more snaps than AH last year? You can assume there where a roster full of linemen that took more snaps but then again we are assuming, the actual data will shock those that quote 30% of the snaps and other ridiculousness that has been posted on the web. I'll make it easy... Name three DL with more 2009 defensive snaps as a D-lineman on the Redskins roster than AH

fleetus wrote: If I was the coach, I would sit down with him and say, "we want to put you in position to succeed and we recognize your talent to get into the backfield. But there are going to be times when we run a 3-4 and will need you to play 2 gap to free up Orakpo and others. Are you going to give us 100% in those situations too? Are you going to set an example and practice hard through the season?" If so, we keep him. If he hesitates for 1 second in his answer or says "but" then I trade him now.

You are ASSUMING the coaches haven't had this conversation with him when all reports state he has talked to the Head Coach, D-coordinator, and the D-line coach. If this hasn't come up in any of their conversations, I'll have to assume the Redskins would be better off with you as the coach.

Don't assume I meant Head coach, D-coordinator, or the D-line coach, I mean You can coach AH or trade him

I really don't know who you think you are arguing with.

fleetus wrote: Shanahan may have already had this same conversation and not liked the answer he got.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:The choices are that both happen or only the second one does. ...what are you going to do since they are both going to happen and you are saying we both keep and dump him?

Shades of gray refers to this question, regarding what I would do, if the the whiny Haynesworth or the all pro Haynesworth shows up. Or both. Shades of gray means I don't know just HOW WHINY and HOW WELL HE PERFORMS in this Haslett defense, or what was said between he and the coaches.

Keep up here Niksider. You're arguing vehemently and not even following the ocnversation.

1niksder wrote:Andre Carter has a stated issues with the 3-4 defense, he doesn't like it and wasn't very good (by his standards). Is his name not coming up in trade talks because of his no-trade clause? If Albert Haynesworth is as bad as most say with all the complaining that he supposedly did/does and also not wanting to play in the 3-4 (although I haven't seen it quoted anywhere), wouldn't Carter coming off 11 sacks and his best performance ever bring in more than AH?

Carter rehab'd away from Redskins Park and nothing was said about it, he'll be at mini-camp but won't be able to participate fully.

Hanyesworth went back to what made him a Pro-bowler and said he is doing what he is doing to get back to that level.

They both said they will have a opened mind about the new 3-4 scheme yet one gets slammed for it and the other get's a pas.

Say what you want about Orakpo's four sacks in a game without Fat Albert, Brian is a beast... How many sacks did Carter have as a hands in the dirt 4-3 DE without AH?

Thank goodness somebody else in here is thinking!!!

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

1niksder wrote:Andre Carter has a stated issues with the 3-4 defense, he doesn't like it and wasn't very good (by his standards). Is his name not coming up in trade talks because of his no-trade clause? If Albert Haynesworth is as bad as most say with all the complaining that he supposedly did/does and also not wanting to play in the 3-4 (although I haven't seen it quoted anywhere), wouldn't Carter coming off 11 sacks and his best performance ever bring in more than AH?

Carter rehab'd away from Redskins Park and nothing was said about it, he'll be at mini-camp but won't be able to participate fully.

Hanyesworth went back to what made him a Pro-bowler and said he is doing what he is doing to get back to that level.

They both said they will have a opened mind about the new 3-4 scheme yet one gets slammed for it and the other get's a pas.

Say what you want about Orakpo's four sacks in a game without Fat Albert, Brian is a beast... How many sacks did Carter have as a hands in the dirt 4-3 DE without AH?

Thank goodness somebody else in here is thinking!!!

It is a point worth mentioning, but not entirely accurate. Carter has stated he will play wherever they put him, no questions asked. This is from a guy who has played a whole season in the 3-4 and did not like it as much as 4-3. Yet, he has no intention of missing mini-camp or questioning his role.

AH strikes out on all three counts. He hasn't played in a 3-4. Has stated he does not want to play NT. Even complained about playing two gap in a 4-3! And AH has stated he WILL NOT be at mini-camp. But everything else said about Carter in Haynesworth was pretty accurate.

fleetus wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

1niksder wrote:Andre Carter has a stated issues with the 3-4 defense, he doesn't like it and wasn't very good (by his standards). Is his name not coming up in trade talks because of his no-trade clause? If Albert Haynesworth is as bad as most say with all the complaining that he supposedly did/does and also not wanting to play in the 3-4 (although I haven't seen it quoted anywhere), wouldn't Carter coming off 11 sacks and his best performance ever bring in more than AH?

Carter rehab'd away from Redskins Park and nothing was said about it, he'll be at mini-camp but won't be able to participate fully.

Hanyesworth went back to what made him a Pro-bowler and said he is doing what he is doing to get back to that level.

They both said they will have a opened mind about the new 3-4 scheme yet one gets slammed for it and the other get's a pas.

Say what you want about Orakpo's four sacks in a game without Fat Albert, Brian is a beast... How many sacks did Carter have as a hands in the dirt 4-3 DE without AH?

Thank goodness somebody else in here is thinking!!!

It is a point worth mentioning, but not entirely accurate. Carter has stated he will play wherever they put him, no questions asked. This is from a guy who has played a whole season in the 3-4 and did not like it as much as 4-3. Yet, he has no intention of missing mini-camp or questioning his role.

AH strikes out on all three counts. He hasn't played in a 3-4. Has stated he does not want to play NT. Even complained about playing two gap in a 4-3! And AH has stated he WILL NOT be at mini-camp. But everything else said about Carter in Haynesworth was pretty accurate.

AH said:

“At first I was a little iffy to it because I’ve never played in the 3-4. I don’t have a clue to how it’s really played. But then I talked to him a little bit and he plans on just playing me in the middle a little bit and at end. I guess I’ll just move around and just wreak havoc; so as long as we’re doing that and I’m not just at one position, I’m fine, I’m fine with it.”

and complained about playing the two gap, because he was told that they were "going to be creative and move me around" when they signed him and then didn't use him like he had been used in Tenn.

Again he's missing voluntary conditioning and a mini-camp that's voluntary.

Carter can't participate yet so being there isn't saying a whole lot.

When Albert misses something that is mandatory then you might have something to complain about, but I've yet to hear AH say he doesn't want to play in the 3-4 and we've all heard it from AC. Carter changed his mind and it's OK. AH says he's never played in the 3-4 and he's a locker room cancer

It really doesn't matter what AH thinks. It matters what he does. And he will not participate in our "voluntary" mini camp. This is, in my mind, a clear signal to Shannahan that AH doesn't want to be here. So, let's trade him and move forward.

GoSkins wrote:It really doesn't matter what AH thinks. It matters what he does. And he will not participate in our "voluntary" mini camp. This is, in my mind, a clear signal to Shannahan that AH doesn't want to be here. So, let's trade him and move forward.

Trading a player because he doesn't attend a "voluntary" anything makes me believe someone is lying when he uses the word "voluntary." I hope that someone is not going to start off with a credibility problem.

I agree these should not be voluntary. They are paid a kings ransom, they should work year round, everyone else on earth does

Gibbs4Life wrote:I agree these should not be voluntary. They are paid a kings ransom, they should work year round, everyone else on earth does

But they ARE, in fact voluntary. So honestly, what you think has no bearing on what reality is at Redskins park.

Hey, unless AH has a good reason for not attending then he, AH, is sending a message to MS that isn't positive. I think this voluntary mini camp is called voluntary because of league rules. I am correct? If so, AH knows this. AH knows MS is all business. In my view AH is thumbing his nose at MS.

GoSkins wrote:It really doesn't matter what AH thinks. It matters what he does. And he will not participate in our "voluntary" mini camp. This is, in my mind, a clear signal to Shannahan that AH doesn't want to be here. So, let's trade him and move forward.

That says it all.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

1niksder wrote:Andre Carter has a stated issues with the 3-4 defense, he doesn't like it and wasn't very good (by his standards). Is his name not coming up in trade talks because of his no-trade clause? If Albert Haynesworth is as bad as most say with all the complaining that he supposedly did/does and also not wanting to play in the 3-4 (although I haven't seen it quoted anywhere), wouldn't Carter coming off 11 sacks and his best performance ever bring in more than AH?

Carter rehab'd away from Redskins Park and nothing was said about it, he'll be at mini-camp but won't be able to participate fully.

Hanyesworth went back to what made him a Pro-bowler and said he is doing what he is doing to get back to that level.

They both said they will have a opened mind about the new 3-4 scheme yet one gets slammed for it and the other get's a pas.

Say what you want about Orakpo's four sacks in a game without Fat Albert, Brian is a beast... How many sacks did Carter have as a hands in the dirt 4-3 DE without AH?

Thank goodness somebody else in here is thinking!!!

You guys must have an insight that Shannahan and the other coaches are not seeing. I'm really starting to agree with you about how big a deal his not showing up as a supposed team leader really is...

Either you are on board with the program, or you are not. If you're not, get off the bus. I don't care how good you are. We, as in team, do not need prima donnas.

"5 men working together can't be beat" Hoosiers

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

GoSkins wrote:It really doesn't matter what AH thinks. It matters what he does. And he will not participate in our "voluntary" mini camp. This is, in my mind, a clear signal to Shannahan that AH doesn't want to be here. So, let's trade him and move forward.

That says it all.

Thanks for the compliment.

So you guys who keep defending Haynesworth, is your argument that after meeting with Haynesworth, Shanahan is really not upset by Haynesworth's statements? Yet he's tried to trade Haynesworth anyway? If so, then you guys must all think Shanahan is crazy. I mean, why would you trade the most valuable player on the team?

We don't know what was said behind closed doors. But we do know what Shanahan is doing about it. So either you think Haynesworth has said and done things to cause the FO to lose confidence in him or you think Shanahan is irrationally trying to rid the team of its most important asset.

I wonder if all of you have read these article, that includes a veteran redskin player stating he could not imagine they will keep Haynesworth. It seems many of you have a much more liberal view of voluntary camps and coaching discipline than the players do:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redski ... ation.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcspor ... csportsbog

or this one where Lorenzo Alexander says what he thinks of the situation.

fleetus wrote:So you guys who keep defending Haynesworth, is your argument that after meeting with Haynesworth, Shanahan is really not upset by Haynesworth's statements? Yet he's tried to trade Haynesworth anyway? If so, then you guys must all think Shanahan is crazy. I mean, why would you trade the most valuable player on the team?

We don't know what was said behind closed doors. But we do know what Shanahan is doing about it. So either you think Haynesworth has said and done things to cause the FO to lose confidence in him or you think Shanahan is irrationally trying to rid the team of its most important asset.

I wonder if all of you have read these article, that includes a veteran redskin player stating he could not imagine they will keep Haynesworth. It seems many of you have a much more liberal view of voluntary camps and coaching discipline than the players do:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redski ... ation.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcspor ... csportsbog

or this one where Lorenzo Alexander says what he thinks of the situation.

If Haynesworth is so much trouble, why are the Titans, a team that knows him very well, allegedly trying to trade for him?

CanesSkins26 wrote:

fleetus wrote:So you guys who keep defending Haynesworth, is your argument that after meeting with Haynesworth, Shanahan is really not upset by Haynesworth's statements? Yet he's tried to trade Haynesworth anyway? If so, then you guys must all think Shanahan is crazy. I mean, why would you trade the most valuable player on the team?

We don't know what was said behind closed doors. But we do know what Shanahan is doing about it. So either you think Haynesworth has said and done things to cause the FO to lose confidence in him or you think Shanahan is irrationally trying to rid the team of its most important asset.

I wonder if all of you have read these article, that includes a veteran redskin player stating he could not imagine they will keep Haynesworth. It seems many of you have a much more liberal view of voluntary camps and coaching discipline than the players do:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redski ... ation.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcspor ... csportsbog

or this one where Lorenzo Alexander says what he thinks of the situation.

If Haynesworth is so much trouble, why are the Titans, a team that knows him very well, allegedly trying to trade for him?

Because Haynesworth isn't telling their coach what he should and shouldn't do.

Further Regarding the Titans:

According to beat writer Jim Wyatt, the Titans would be willing to give up a third-round pick to acquire Albert Haynesworth but not a first-rounder.
The Redskins were believed to be willing to part with Haynesworth for a third-rounder before they picked up his $21M bonus, but we can't imagine that remains the case. The Titans don't have a 2010 second-rounder, so they'd have to dig into the 2011 draft to further entice the Redskins.

GoSkins wrote:Hey, unless AH has a good reason for not attending then he, AH, is sending a message to MS that isn't positive. I think this voluntary mini camp is called voluntary because of league rules. I am correct? If so, AH knows this. AH knows MS is all business. In my view AH is thumbing his nose at MS.

If MS is lying about the "voluntary" camp and breaking league rules, he's sending a negative message not only to the players and the NFL, but also to the youth of America.