Page 7 of 10
Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 11:27 pm
by crazyhorse1
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.
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 8:11 am
by KazooSkinsFan
crazyhorse1 wrote: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.
The league says you can't force players to come to camp. Period. That they are somehow protected from any repercussions of that decision is nonsense. About the only thing the team can't do is suspend them or fine them directly for the act of missing camp. That's it. There is no protection from being cut, traded, losing starting jobs, being criticized my management, ...
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:20 am
by CanesSkins26
The league says you can't force players to come to camp. Period. That they are somehow protected from any repercussions of that decision is nonsense.
It's part of the collective bargaining agreement, so there is nothing that the league can do about it.
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 11:45 am
by KazooSkinsFan
CanesSkins26 wrote:The league says you can't force players to come to camp. Period. That they are somehow protected from any repercussions of that decision is nonsense.
It's part of the collective bargaining agreement, so there is nothing that the league can do about it.
I don't understand what you meant, this can be read with multiple meanings. I am saying the teams can't require players directly to come to camp, but players have no other protection from the repercussions of not coming other then they couldn't be punished (e.g., suspended, fined) specifically for not coming to camp. Their roles and even their jobs are not protected. Are you disagreeing with that? If so, how so exactly?
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 12:02 pm
by CanesSkins26
KazooSkinsFan wrote:CanesSkins26 wrote:The league says you can't force players to come to camp. Period. That they are somehow protected from any repercussions of that decision is nonsense.
It's part of the collective bargaining agreement, so there is nothing that the league can do about it.
I don't understand what you meant, this can be read with multiple meanings. I am saying the teams can't require players directly to come to camp, but players have no other protection from the repercussions of not coming other then they couldn't be punished (e.g., suspended, fined) specifically for not coming to camp. Their roles and even their jobs are not protected. Are you disagreeing with that? If so, how so exactly?
Not disagreeing with anything that you said, just adding on. The reason that teams can't require players to attend these workout and mini camps is because of what was agreed to by the players and owners as part of the collective bargaining agreement. So the league couldn't even change this rule unilaterally if it wanted to. It is something that would have to be collectively bargained with the players.
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 12:05 pm
by fleetus
KazooSkinsFan wrote:crazyhorse1 wrote: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.
The league says you can't force players to come to camp. Period. That they are somehow protected from any repercussions of that decision is nonsense. About the only thing the team can't do is suspend them or fine them directly for the act of missing camp. That's it. There is no protection from being cut, traded, losing starting jobs, being criticized my management, ...
Yet, every player currently on the Redskins roster plans to be at the VOLUNTARY mini camp tomorrow EXCEPT AH who also happens to be the highest paid Redskin.
I don't know what kind of careers you guys have, but in mine, I have to show up for some extra work when my boss asks me. In return for that cooperation, I also can take the occasional day off without question. AH gets paid the most but expects to work the least. Not a good example and not a very good investment made by the FO. Which I suspect is why they are trying to trade him. Just sayin...
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 12:08 pm
by CanesSkins26
fleetus wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:crazyhorse1 wrote: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.
The league says you can't force players to come to camp. Period. That they are somehow protected from any repercussions of that decision is nonsense. About the only thing the team can't do is suspend them or fine them directly for the act of missing camp. That's it. There is no protection from being cut, traded, losing starting jobs, being criticized my management, ...
Yet, every player currently on the Redskins roster plans to be at the VOLUNTARY mini camp tomorrow EXCEPT AH who also happens to be the highest paid Redskin.
I don't know what kind of careers you guys have, but in mine, I have to show up for some extra work when my boss asks me. In return for that cooperation, I also can take the occasional day off without question. AH gets paid the most but expects to work the least. Not a good example and not a very good investment made by the FO. Which I suspect is why they are trying to trade him. Just sayin...
How about we wait until tomorrow to see if he is the only one not participating.
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 1:00 pm
by VetSkinsFan
fleetus wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:crazyhorse1 wrote: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.
The league says you can't force players to come to camp. Period. That they are somehow protected from any repercussions of that decision is nonsense. About the only thing the team can't do is suspend them or fine them directly for the act of missing camp. That's it. There is no protection from being cut, traded, losing starting jobs, being criticized my management, ...
Yet, every player currently on the Redskins roster plans to be at the VOLUNTARY mini camp tomorrow EXCEPT AH who also happens to be the highest paid Redskin.
I don't know what kind of careers you guys have, but in mine, I have to show up for some extra work when my boss asks me. In return for that cooperation, I also can take the occasional day off without question. AH gets paid the most but expects to work the least. Not a good example and not a very good investment made by the FO. Which I suspect is why they are trying to trade him. Just sayin...
You act like he's laid up on the couch with a martini. He's working out,just not at the Park during VOLUNTARY workouts. VOLUNTARY. Say it with me boys and girls... VOL UN TAR Y.
Wait until mandatory mini camps before forming that lynch mob.
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 1:15 pm
by crazyhorse1
Gibbs4Life wrote:Haynesworth has disrespected the wishes of Shanahan by not volunteering to workout with his teammates, ok, he's also making so much money that even if he tanks it the rest of the way he's happy.
The thing is normally you would say never give a player with Albert's work ethic a 100million dollar deal, but when you look at our division and how far away we were going into last year, Albert was the FA that most presented an opportunity to be competitive again.
But that was then, this is now, I think disrespecting Shanahan's request partnered with Al's 09' performance is enough to have us contemplate a trade especially when we are depleated (what else is new) of draft picks.
So the question becomes if your looking to trade, where do you send him and for what, obviously a straight up big al for Mcnabb wouldve been great. But now I think another team deserves a phone call...
Call the Lions, they'd like to draft Okung but need a DT, trade them Albert for their #2, then trade back out of #4 and pick up 2 #1's or a 1 and a 3, there is depth at OT in this draft its not Okung or bust at LT. Some think Trent Williams is better than Okung in alot of ways. There's also Bruce Campbell Bulaga and Iupati (more of a guard but we need one of those too)
If we did that we'd have the chance to draft two Olineman in the first two rounds. Or say Trent Williams and Shanny's developmental project under McNeezy....Timmy Tebow
Trading big Al would be a major blow to the defense, especially in regard to sacks. There's no readily apparent way we can make up for losing the best DL in the NFL. Leave the man alone. Aside from needing him badly, it's simply bad policy for the Skin to call for a "voluntary" mini camp and then punish a player for training on his own. Breaking a pact with the player's association is breaking a pact with ALL of our players, which is not the way to go about business. Every player on the team will resent it. If management can't be trusted, why should there be feelings of loyalty?
Naturally, there won't be any.
Already, every Redskin knows Campbell was told he would be the starter this year by MS himself, even after McNabb was acquired. Management should watch what it does if it wants to be respected.
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 1:30 pm
by crazyhorse1
Gibbs4Life wrote:Haynesworth has disrespected the wishes of Shanahan by not volunteering to workout with his teammates, ok, he's also making so much money that even if he tanks it the rest of the way he's happy.
The thing is normally you would say never give a player with Albert's work ethic a 100million dollar deal, but when you look at our division and how far away we were going into last year, Albert was the FA that most presented an opportunity to be competitive again.
But that was then, this is now, I think disrespecting Shanahan's request partnered with Al's 09' performance is enough to have us contemplate a trade especially when we are depleated (what else is new) of draft picks.
So the question becomes if your looking to trade, where do you send him and for what, obviously a straight up big al for Mcnabb wouldve been great. But now I think another team deserves a phone call...
Call the Lions, they'd like to draft Okung but need a DT, trade them Albert for their #2, then trade back out of #4 and pick up 2 #1's or a 1 and a 3, there is depth at OT in this draft its not Okung or bust at LT. Some think Trent Williams is better than Okung in alot of ways. There's also Bruce Campbell Bulaga and Iupati (more of a guard but we need one of those too)
If we did that we'd have the chance to draft two Olineman in the first two rounds. Or say Trent Williams and Shanny's developmental project under McNeezy....Timmy Tebow
A straight up trade of Haynesworth for McNabb would have been bonkers.
No way a 34 year old quarterback with major accuracy and durability problems is worth a DL of Haynesworth's quality. There's too much gaga about McNabb on this board-- his numbers don't justify it. Also, there's too much gaga about Allen and MS. All they've done so far is acquire either poor or over-the-hill players (with the possible exception of McNabb) and fail to pursue or acquire superior players. They didn't so much as wave a cape at guys like Dansby, Pashos, and Brandon Marshall-- all three would have been of immense help.
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 1:33 pm
by Countertrey
Already, every Redskin knows Campbell was told he would be the starter this year by MS himself, even after McNabb was acquired.
Interesting... everything I have heard or read has said specifically the opposite... that there would be a competition for every position, including quarterback.
Care to share a quote?
... a link?
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 1:42 pm
by fleetus
VetSkinsFan wrote:fleetus wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:crazyhorse1 wrote: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.
The league says you can't force players to come to camp. Period. That they are somehow protected from any repercussions of that decision is nonsense. About the only thing the team can't do is suspend them or fine them directly for the act of missing camp. That's it. There is no protection from being cut, traded, losing starting jobs, being criticized my management, ...
Yet, every player currently on the Redskins roster plans to be at the VOLUNTARY mini camp tomorrow EXCEPT AH who also happens to be the highest paid Redskin.
I don't know what kind of careers you guys have, but in mine, I have to show up for some extra work when my boss asks me. In return for that cooperation, I also can take the occasional day off without question. AH gets paid the most but expects to work the least. Not a good example and not a very good investment made by the FO. Which I suspect is why they are trying to trade him. Just sayin...
You act like he's laid up on the couch with a martini. He's working out,just not at the Park during VOLUNTARY workouts. VOLUNTARY. Say it with me boys and girls... VOL UN TAR Y.
Wait until mandatory mini camps before forming that lynch mob.
Defend it any way you want. But the brass tax is, AH is the only player who thinks he's above voluntary camp. You can hang your hat on the word voluntary all you want. The NFL is a team sport. Coaches work hard to instill a team concept. Haynesworth is the exception to the Redskins team concept right now. We'll see tomorrow. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it.
You can paint as pretty a picture as you want about it. But the bottom line is, MS has tried to trade him and by all reports, still trying to trade him. No offense, but based on the history of AH, the player vs. the history of MS the coach, I'll put my faith in MS on this issue. If MS sits down with AH and hears something worth taking him off the trade block, then I'll more than likely agree with that move too. For now, AH is a distraction and setting a poor example for his teammates.
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:50 am
by KazooSkinsFan
CanesSkins26 wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:I don't understand what you meant, this can be read with multiple meanings. I am saying the teams can't require players directly to come to camp, but players have no other protection from the repercussions of not coming other then they couldn't be punished (e.g., suspended, fined) specifically for not coming to camp. Their roles and even their jobs are not protected. Are you disagreeing with that? If so, how so exactly?
Not disagreeing with anything that you said, just adding on. The reason that teams can't require players to attend these workout and mini camps is because of what was agreed to by the players and owners as part of the collective bargaining agreement. So the league couldn't even change this rule unilaterally if it wanted to. It is something that would have to be collectively bargained with the players.
Gotcha. I agree.
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:52 am
by KazooSkinsFan
fleetus wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:crazyhorse1 wrote: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.
The league says you can't force players to come to camp. Period. That they are somehow protected from any repercussions of that decision is nonsense. About the only thing the team can't do is suspend them or fine them directly for the act of missing camp. That's it. There is no protection from being cut, traded, losing starting jobs, being criticized my management, ...
Yet, every player currently on the Redskins roster plans to be at the VOLUNTARY mini camp tomorrow EXCEPT AH who also happens to be the highest paid Redskin.
I don't know what kind of careers you guys have, but in mine, I have to show up for some extra work when my boss asks me. In return for that cooperation, I also can take the occasional day off without question. AH gets paid the most but expects to work the least. Not a good example and not a very good investment made by the FO. Which I suspect is why they are trying to trade him. Just sayin...
I don't know how you could possibly get out of my post that I am OK with AH not coming to camp since I neither said nor think that.
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 12:21 pm
by fleetus
KazooSkinsFan wrote:fleetus wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:crazyhorse1 wrote: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.
The league says you can't force players to come to camp. Period. That they are somehow protected from any repercussions of that decision is nonsense. About the only thing the team can't do is suspend them or fine them directly for the act of missing camp. That's it. There is no protection from being cut, traded, losing starting jobs, being criticized my management, ...
Yet, every player currently on the Redskins roster plans to be at the VOLUNTARY mini camp tomorrow EXCEPT AH who also happens to be the highest paid Redskin.
I don't know what kind of careers you guys have, but in mine, I have to show up for some extra work when my boss asks me. In return for that cooperation, I also can take the occasional day off without question. AH gets paid the most but expects to work the least. Not a good example and not a very good investment made by the FO. Which I suspect is why they are trying to trade him. Just sayin...
I don't know how you could possibly get out of my post that I am OK with AH not coming to camp since I neither said nor think that.
Sorry, I was adressing the several AH apologists. It was more directed at GoSkins quote than yours. Looks like I may have been slightly wrong if reports about McINtosh's absence is correct. We knew JC's absence was agreed by Shanny. Not sure about Rocky.
It says something about JC's character that he is studying the playbook even though he's waiting to be traded.
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 12:28 pm
by The Hogster
I can't stand AH, but I am reluctant to trade him. That would give him exactly what he wants. And, switching to the 3-4 we need as many playmakers as we can get. Kemo is coming off of knee surgery and we have no other legit NT on the roster.
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 12:41 pm
by fleetus
The Hogster wrote:I can't stand AH, but I am reluctant to trade him. That would give him exactly what he wants. And, switching to the 3-4 we need as many playmakers as we can get. Kemo is coming off of knee surgery and we have no other legit NT on the roster.
There are legit NT's in the draft and we could trade AH for a decent pick or two. If B. Marshall brings two 2nd rounders, AH should too IMO. MArshall's cap hit is bigger than AH's too.
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 6:40 pm
by The Hogster
fleetus wrote:The Hogster wrote:I can't stand AH, but I am reluctant to trade him. That would give him exactly what he wants. And, switching to the 3-4 we need as many playmakers as we can get. Kemo is coming off of knee surgery and we have no other legit NT on the roster.
There are legit NT's in the draft and we could trade AH for a decent pick or two. If B. Marshall brings two 2nd rounders, AH should too IMO. MArshall's cap hit is bigger than AH's too.
If we could get 2 2nd rounders, I would be up for that. But, I am not sure that we can pull that off.
Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 6:44 pm
by chiefhog44
Looks like he wants out...
Due to his frustration with a potential move to nose tackle, Albert Haynesworth is reportedly hoping to be traded during the NFL Draft.
The Washington Post cites "two people in the organization familiar with his situation." Haynesworth is skipping voluntary minicamp this weekend and will only report to mandatory minicamp in June. Despite Mike Shanahan's comments to the contrary, we fully expect him to be available for the right price next week. The Titans, Lions, and Rams are the most likely trade partners.
http://www.rotoworld.com/content/clubho ... ajteam=WAS
Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:47 am
by Chris Luva Luva
Adam Shefter (sp) who is rarely wrong and who is extremely close to Mike Shannahan reported that Al is NOT getting traded.
Glad to hear it.
1. We need AH.
2. It'll irritate some of you.
I believe we now have 2 guys that can play NT that we've brought in. Apparently Anthony Montgomery is slated to play that position too. I don't expect to see Al at that position too much.
Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:55 pm
by yupchagee
Chris Luva Luva wrote:Adam Shefter (sp) who is rarely wrong and who is extremely close to Mike Shannahan reported that Al is NOT getting traded.
Glad to hear it.
1. We need AH.
2. It'll irritate some of you.
I believe we now have 2 guys that can play NT that we've brought in. Apparently Anthony Montgomery is slated to play that position too. I don't expect to see Al at that position too much.
1) Kemo is coming off a major injury & might not be ready for a while.
2) Peterson in 3 years has played in 9 games % has 11 tackles (5 solo). He hasn't played. He's also been injured a lot.
3) Based on the last 2 years, Montgomery can't play anywhere.
Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 9:49 pm
by SkinsJock
Count me in the camp that sees Haynesworth here this coming season
and, I think we're better off
Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 10:34 am
by fleetus
SkinsJock wrote:Count me in the camp that sees Haynesworth here this coming season
and, I think we're better off
I say it all depends on the quality of offers during the draft. He's available, no mistake about it. But considering the 21M payout, Shan-Allen will demand a big return.
Haynesworth's former coach, Schwartz, now the HC in Detroit has already brought in one former Titan, Van den Bosch. Wouldn't surprise me if he swapped the #2 for Skins #4 and added their 2nd rounder (and maybe more) to get Haynesworth. Skins then pick Suh or Okung and add a nice high 2nd round pick for another O-lineman.
Detroit appeases fans by getting top player like Haynesworth but still manages to draft a LT for Stafford. Skins get rid of a locker room cancer who doesn't want to be here and adds a couple pics in the process. I think Suh is undoubtedly THE BEST player in the draft, so if it was possible to get him + some extra picks + rid the team of a problem child, the Skins would be a better team. Just one theory.
Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:02 pm
by CanesSkins26
fleetus wrote:SkinsJock wrote:Count me in the camp that sees Haynesworth here this coming season
and, I think we're better off
I say it all depends on the quality of offers during the draft. He's available, no mistake about it. But considering the 21M payout, Shan-Allen will demand a big return.
Haynesworth's former coach, Schwartz, now the HC in Detroit has already brought in one former Titan, Van den Bosch. Wouldn't surprise me if he swapped the #2 for Skins #4 and added their 2nd rounder (and maybe more) to get Haynesworth. Skins then pick Suh or Okung and add a nice high 2nd round pick for another O-lineman.
Detroit appeases fans by getting top player like Haynesworth but still manages to draft a LT for Stafford. Skins get rid of a locker room cancer who doesn't want to be here and adds a couple pics in the process. I think Suh is undoubtedly THE BEST player in the draft, so if it was possible to get him + some extra picks + rid the team of a problem child, the Skins would be a better team. Just one theory.
That deal doesn't really make sense from our perspective. All that we would be getting out of that is a high 2nd rounder, which isn't worth trading AH for. Yes we would get the 2nd overall pick, but we should be able to get Okung at 4 so there is no real need to trade up two spots.
Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:24 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
fleetus wrote:Skins get rid of a locker room cancer
No doubt AH is a pouter with a big ego, but to be a "locker room cancer" that means he's having a negative impact on the team. What is your accusation based on? I hear what he says, I don't hear other players saying how it's harming the team or them. So what is your evidence that's happening?