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

RayNAustin wrote:As much as it was a welcomed event to finally get a GM running the team, so far, I see no sign of actions that would support an optimistic view of 2010. The way they are working, this looks more like a multi-year rebuilding with a potential lockout in 2011.

Maybe some blockbuster trades are on the horizon ... and a great plan for the draft ... but I expected a bit more activity given an uncapped year ahead and an owner that is willing to spend.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:As much as it was a welcomed event to finally get a GM running the team, so far, I see no sign of actions that would support an optimistic view of 2010. The way they are working, this looks more like a multi-year rebuilding with a potential lockout in 2011.

Maybe some blockbuster trades are on the horizon ... and a great plan for the draft ... but I expected a bit more activity given an uncapped year ahead and an owner that is willing to spend.

Right, it's an uncapped "year." One. Singular. Then we have a lockout and a new cap system that's probably tighter and not more generous. Do you see us as a Super Bowl threat this year if we'd signed a bunch of the best free agents? I don't think so. So if that's the case, how would it make sense to sign good free agents who are in their late 20s or 30s, not win the Super Bowl this year, have no idea what happens next year, then when they are 2 years older then that find out what kind of system we have?

What they are doing makes perfect sense. #1: Dump wasted cap, done. #2: Look for vets to keep us competitive, in progress. Look for good rookies in and after the draft to build up our young talent base, TBA. Signing big contracts would have been foolish. That's why we didn't do it.

Bob 0119 wrote:"Bend; don't break" has the flaw of bending so much that the opponent has an easier chance of scoring. I say don't bend or break. Focus on getting that "three-and-out" more than "well, at least they didn't score on THAT play."

RayNAustin wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:Not necessarily ... PROVIDED that significant improvement takes place at offense. It is the OVERALL balance on offense and defense that matters.

And why should we anticipate a significant improvement on offense? We have the same QB who now has a new system to learn, and has proven to be a rather slow learner as well as mediocre, coupled with a new offensive line (hopefully) that has to learn not only a new offense, but also a zone blocking scheme that is significantly different than conventional ...
As much as it was a welcomed event to finally get a GM running the team, so far, I see no sign of actions that would support an optimistic view of 2010. The way they are working, this looks more like a multi-year rebuilding with a potential lockout in 2011.
Maybe some blockbuster trades are on the horizon ... and a great plan for the draft ... but I expected a bit more activity given an uncapped year ahead and an owner that is willing to spend.

RayNAustin wrote:Look, don't assume to have read my mind .. put down what I think and then argue it. Ridiculous.

RayNAustin wrote:I expected a bit more activity given an uncapped year ahead and an owner that is willing to spend

kaz wrote:Right, it's an uncapped "year." One. Singular. Then we have a lockout and a new cap system that's probably tighter and not more generous. Do you see us as a Super Bowl threat this year if we'd signed a bunch of the best free agents? I don't think so. So if that's the case, how would it make sense to sign good free agents who are in their late 20s or 30s, not win the Super Bowl this year, have no idea what happens next year, then when they are 2 years older then that find out what kind of system we have?

What they are doing makes perfect sense. #1: Dump wasted cap, done. #2: Look for vets to keep us competitive, in progress. Look for good rookies in and after the draft to build up our young talent base, TBA. Signing big contracts would have been foolish. That's why we didn't do it.

SkinsJock wrote:I also think that Haynesworth's apparent lack of enthusiasm for the 'new' defense here is exagerrated

langleyparkjoe wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:

fleetus wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:Attacking defences create turnovers, and we haven't done that since 1945 (a slight exaggeration? )

They were 8th in the NFL in sacks. But to get INT's, you need someone other than "stone hands" Rogers and Laron "Whiplash" Landry playing the back four. But I will agree Blache's defenses were not the best turnover creators in the league. But they were solid generally.

Irregardless, Blache is gone and we will see if Haynesworth will complain with a whole new coaching staff.

Stone Hands and Whiplash... I mean you couldn't have said it any better than that!

Rogers I have no excuse for...Landry needs to play in his natural position before I criticize. Until then, I criticize the coaching staff...

Watching your own game footage and realizing your getting creamed on double moves should be a player's problem. The coach putting in the DVD and hitting play should be the coach's priority.

SkinsJock wrote:Landry has an awful lot to offer and I do not think we have seen him play or utilise his talent as well as he's capable

I hope that Landry can be the player that he's capable of being but I also look for Landry to become the defensive backfield leder that he's also capable of being

SkinsJock wrote:Landry can and will be a big time player in the NFL - I just hope we get to see it happen in B&G and not some other uniform

SkinsJock wrote:Landry can and will be a big time player in the NFL - I just hope we get to see it happen in B&G and not some other uniform

CanesSkins26 wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:Landry can and will be a big time player in the NFL - I just hope we get to see it happen in B&G and not some other uniform

I hope so, bit really doubt it. It's all mental with him and he needs to mature significantly and improve his attitude tremendously to live up to his potential. Unfortunately, he is an immature punk right now. Hopefully the new staff can get the most FOR him.

1niksder wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:Landry can and will be a big time player in the NFL - I just hope we get to see it happen in B&G and not some other uniform

I hope so, bit really doubt it. It's all mental with him and he needs to mature significantly and improve his attitude tremendously to live up to his potential. Unfortunately, he is an immature punk right now. Hopefully the new staff can get the most FOR him.

Fixed it

SkinsJock wrote:It would be a bit of a shame if we lose Landry but if he can be traded for a decent pick, then that is better for the team - IMO, this guy has disapointed both himself and the franchise

BOT - as far as Haynesworth is concerned, he was a bit of a disapointment also but I think that let down and one of the reasons for his apparent bad attitude was more due to how he (and other players) were used - I think the defensive unit here has not been as effective as it could have been - I agree that Haynesworth has always been 'difficult' but I don't think he was exactly treated very well or really liked how things were with the defense here last year - this year the attitude has to go

I'm sure that Haynesworth will be a different player this year as will Landry, but I have a feeling 1niksder may be right and only 1 of them will be in B&G this year

yupchagee wrote:Haynsworth & Landry are naturally agreessive players. Blache didn't want them to play agressively. That was the problem.

chiefhog44 wrote:Just saw this... I like this guy less and less

After arriving on time for Monday's orientation, Albert Haynesworth didn't show up for the rest of the week's workouts, sources tell CSNWashington.com.

New coach Mike Shanahan made a point to tell everyone that he expects his leaders to participate in the entire offseason workout program, but the team was reportedly aware of Haynesworth's plans. Haynesworth is owed a guaranteed option bonus of $21 million on April 1 and he is in no danger of getting cut.

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/clubho ... ajteam=WAS[url][/url]

WaPo RI wrote:But here's the thing: He never intended to and the Redskins were made aware of his plans, people familiar with the situation said. There was a lot of Internet speculation that Haynesworth would skip all of last week's events at the complex because he's supposedly upset about having to play nose tackle more frequently than he would prefer in the Redskins' new base 3-4 defense.

Haynesworth, however, has not commented publicly on his situation since the end of last season. Before the workouts began, I wrote Haynesworth planned to be present on the first day, and he showed up to listen to Coach Mike Shanahan address the entire team for the first time.

Haynesworth also participated in other first-day activities. But Haynesworth, who is determined to have a big year in 2010, comitted to an individual workout regime with a trainer before the Redskins' plans were set, according to the people with knowledge of the situation.

Haynesworth is following an intense offseason workout program under the guidance of the same trainer who helped him reach all-pro status during the 2007-08 seasons. Shanahan made it clear he wanted his "team leaders" to report to Ashburn for the conditioning program, and Haynesworth, who has talked with the team about his offseason schedule, believed it was important to be there on the first day. And Haynesworth is "gonna be around" the complex as the workouts progress, one of the sources said.

As I reported last week, Haynesworth and the Redskins in January discussed Haynesworth's new role during a meeting at the complex, and there have been follow-up conversations, team sources said. Would Shanahan prefer to have Haynesworth in Ashburn year-round for the positive statement that would make? Probably.

But Shanahan, I think, realizes that Haynesworth could be the key to his plan to shift from the 4-3 to the 3-4. Haynesworth showed respect to Shanahan by attending on the first day for something that is voluntary under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.

fleetus wrote:I don't know, a 21M bonus would get me to workout with my team rather than a personal trainer. Shanahan and the coaches are the ones who should be directing Haynesworth's conditioning. Meanwhile, the team should be working together as a team. I bet Shanahan isn't happy about a player wanting special treatment this early in his tenure. if this were London Fletcher, it would not be news. but with Haynesworth, we're almost expecting him to cause problems. Why couldn't he just cancel his workout with his personal trainer so the Redskins coaches can spend some time with him before handing over a 21M check?