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

Posted: **Sat Sep 04, 2010 8:32 pm**

Here we go again...

ryanohalloran

On latest Haynesworth crap, guy caught in middle is Haslett -has put in a ton of time with 92 but is stuck between player and Shanahan.

JReidPost

Redskins source: "I don't know what Mike will do" about Haynesworth. Was hoping to focus on uplifting Jarmon/Westbrook stuff. Oh, well.

JasonLaCanfora

My man @JReidPost picking up on what I reported last week: Haynesworth highly unlikely 2 start and might even be inactive Week 1. Bad scene

Posted: **Sat Sep 04, 2010 8:33 pm**

From Jason Reid

A disappointing performance by Albert Haynesworth in the Redskins' preseason finale has renewed concerns about the Pro Bowler's commitment to the team and apparently has affected his status for the regular-season opener against Dallas, three people familiar with the situation said Saturday.

Haynesworth was "awful" Thursday during the Cardinals' 20-10 victory at University of Phoenix Stadium, said two of the team sources who recently reviewed game film. It often appeared he gave little effort while participating in 49 of the Redskins' 55 defensive plays. On the few occasions he did play hard, the two sources said, Haynesworth failed to adhere to the principles of the new 3-4 scheme. He was credited with four tackles, including three unassisted.

All three sources indicated that Coach Mike Shanahan has lost his patience with the ongoing Haynesworth drama. During practice at Redskins Park Saturday, Haynesworth took part in very few plays, one of the sources said. He was moved back to nose tackle -- he had been working primarily at right end recently -- and removed from the nickel package.

Considering Saturday's developments, it is highly unlikely Haynesworth would be named a starter for the opener, all of the sources said. The Redskins play host to the Cowboys, their NFC East rivals, Sept. 12 at FedEx Field. Redskins defensive coaches have worked hard to help Haynesworth prepare to play right end this season, but the situation is unsettled again after Haynesworth's poor showing in the desert.

Speaking on behalf of Shanahan, team spokesman Tony Wyllie declined to comment about Haynesworth. "Mike will address questions on Monday," Wyllie wrote in response to an email.

The most recent turn in the Shanahan-Haynesworth saga was unexpected. The two men seemed to turn a page recently, burying the animosity that began when Haynesworth refused to attend offseason workouts and a mandatory minicamp. Haynesworth started at right end in the nickel package and played extensively in the Week 3 preseason victory over the New York Jets.
ad_icon

Afterward, an upbeat Haynesworth joked with reporters about saving Shanahan from an errant ball and having cigars and drinks at Shanahan's house. But Haynesworth, a nine-year veteran, appeared frustrated about playing the entire game against Arizona. When approached by a reporter after the game, Haynesworth said, "I have no comment."

The Redskins could assign Haynesworth to the inactive list against Dallas, or have him active and hold him out, but that could hurt the defense, two of the sources acknowledged. Although Haynesworth has stirred controversy since the offseason, he still is considered among the NFL's top defensive players.

Haynesworth often commands a double-team, freeing others to make plays. His presence on the field during the preseason, even while he was learning the defense, clearly helped his teammates at times.

People close to Haynesworth on the team insist he would play hard against the Cowboys. The Redskins are better with Haynesworth on the field, two of his teammates said Saturday, adding they hope Shanahan views the situation similarly.

But Shanahan runs the football operation, so it will be his decision alone on how to use the two-time all-pro performer. Shanahan may seek input from defensive coordinator Jim Haslett, who has been supportive of Haynesworth. But Haslett is among Shanahan's most loyal lieutenants.

Owner Daniel Snyder guaranteed Haynesworth $41 million in the contract Haynesworth signed in February of 2009. Haynesworth, who played in 12 games last season, already has been paid $32 million -- including a $21 million bonus on April 1.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/04/AR2010090403131.html

Posted: **Sat Sep 04, 2010 8:35 pm**

CanesSkins26 wrote:Here we go again...

ryanohalloran

On latest Haynesworth crap, guy caught in middle is Haslett -has put in a ton of time with 92 but is stuck between player and Shanahan.

JReidPost

Redskins source: "I don't know what Mike will do" about Haynesworth. Was hoping to focus on uplifting Jarmon/Westbrook stuff. Oh, well.

JasonLaCanfora

My man @JReidPost picking up on what I reported last week: Haynesworth highly unlikely 2 start and might even be inactive Week 1. Bad scene

Slow time after a long day, All 3 are related to the WP, they do what they do.... No News Make News

Posted: **Sat Sep 04, 2010 8:40 pm**

All they do is repeat each others news. They had a false report earlier. It's BS until I hear it from the Skins. It's really bad on twitter.

Posted: **Sat Sep 04, 2010 9:01 pm**

People close to Haynesworth on the team insist he would play hard against the Cowboys. The Redskins are better with Haynesworth on the field, two of his teammates said Saturday, adding they hope Shanahan views the situation similarly.

That's why I wish Shanahan would have just pulled AH from the last preseason game after the 1st qurter. Clearly AH's heart was not in it, but I think it would be against Dallas.

I know, I know. Shanahan can't show weakness, and he says he wanted to get Al reps, but I cant get past the thought that making him play the entire game with the 2nd and 3rd teamers was a vindictive move on Shanahan's part, just to show AH who's the boss. By forcing him to play the whole game, he was needlessly hurting AH's pride and making this into an ongoing issue. He could just as easily made him play the first quarter, gotten his point across, and still saved face for both he and AH.

AH was clearly upset, and not giving any effort. And even though he's wrong to cop that attitude, Shanahan has painted himself into a corner, where he now has to prolong this drama, so he doesn't appear weak. He could have easily, and rightly, declared victory, and diffused the situation, by just pulling AH after the first period.

Posted: **Sat Sep 04, 2010 9:07 pm**

Deadskins wrote:
People close to Haynesworth on the team insist he would play hard against the Cowboys. The Redskins are better with Haynesworth on the field, two of his teammates said Saturday, adding they hope Shanahan views the situation similarly.

That's why I wish Shanahan would have just pulled AH from the last preseason game after the 1st qurter. Clearly AH's heart was not in it, but I think it would be against Dallas.

I know, I know. Shanahan can't show weakness, and he says he wanted to get Al reps, but I cant get past the thought that making him play the entire game with the 2nd and 3rd teamers was a vindictive move on Shanahan's part, just to show AH who's the boss. By forcing him to play the whole game, he was needlessly hurting AH's pride and making this into an ongoing issue. He could just as easily made him play the first quarter, gotten his point across, and still saved face for both he and AH.

AH was clearly upset, and not giving any effort. And even though he's wrong to cop that attitude, Shanahan has painted himself into a corner, where he now has to prolong this drama, so he doesn't appear weak. He could have easily, and rightly, declared victory, and diffused the situation, by just pulling AH after the first period.

I think that you're dead on in your assessment.

Posted: **Sat Sep 04, 2010 9:07 pm**

Chris Luva Luva wrote:All they do is repeat each others news. They had a false report earlier. It's BS until I hear it from the Skins. It's really bad on twitter.

The only guy he named was Tony Wyllie, and he said the same thing AH said... "no comment"

Posted: **Sat Sep 04, 2010 11:17 pm**

Deadskins wrote:People close to Haynesworth on the team insist he would play hard against the Cowboys. The Redskins are better with Haynesworth on the field, two of his teammates said Saturday, adding they hope Shanahan views the situation similarly.

OK - I think that most here agree that Haynesworth does NOT have the slightest clue about what is best for the Redskins defense :shock:

That's why I wish Shanahan would have just pulled AH from the last preseason game after the 1st qurter. Clearly AH's heart was not in it, but I think it would be against Dallas.

How can you think that? - are you trying to make us think that this fat slob, would be "up" for certain games - are you serious?

I know, I know. Shanahan can't show weakness, and he says he wanted to get Al reps, but I cant get past the thought that making him play the entire game with the 2nd and 3rd teamers was a vindictive move on Shanahan's part, just to show AH who's the boss. By forcing him to play the whole game, he was needlessly hurting AH's pride and making this into an ongoing issue. He could just as easily made him play the first quarter, gotten his point across, and still saved face for both he and AH.

AH was clearly upset, and not giving any effort. And even though he's wrong to cop that attitude, Shanahan has painted himself into a corner, where he now has to prolong this drama, so he doesn't appear weak. He could have easily, and rightly, declared victory, and diffused the situation, by just pulling AH after the first period.

- c'mon JSPB - this is BS and you know it :lol:

Haynesworth needs to realize that he needs his coaches a whole lot more than they need him - so far, he has let everyone down, big time - all he's shown is that he's a loser

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 7:37 am**

skinsr4real wrote:
skinsr4real thinks Deadskins wrote:People close to Haynesworth on the team insist he would play hard against the Cowboys. The Redskins are better with Haynesworth on the field, two of his teammates said Saturday, adding they hope Shanahan views the situation similarly.

OK - I think that most here agree that Haynesworth does NOT have the slightest clue about what is best for the Redskins defense

OK - First of all, This is not my quote, but one from the article by Jason Reid in the post directly preceding mine. Second, it is talking about how his teammates feel about AH's attitude. If you had read the article, it specifically says Jim Haslett is one of AH's biggest supporters. I think JH and AH's teammates might know a thing about what is best for the Skins defense, don't you? So get over your shock and try reading what is written, not what you think is being said.

skinsr4real wrote:
Deadskins wrote:That's why I wish Shanahan would have just pulled AH from the last preseason game after the 1st quarter. Clearly AH's heart was not in it, but I think it would be against Dallas.

How can you think that? - are you trying to make us think that this fat slob, would be "up" for certain games - are you serious?

Yes, I'm absolutely serious. I do think AH can get "up" for certain games. They're called regular season games. I'm not saying he's going to play harder against Dallas because they are our rivals, and I don't think his teammates were saying that either. I also think that he would still be taking plays off here and there, but he wouldn't be dogging it the entire game like he did Thursday, in a game he knows means nothing.

skinsr4real wrote:
Deadskins wrote:I know, I know. Shanahan can't show weakness, and he says he wanted to get Al reps, but I cant get past the thought that making him play the entire game with the 2nd and 3rd teamers was a vindictive move on Shanahan's part, just to show AH who's the boss. By forcing him to play the whole game, he was needlessly hurting AH's pride and making this into an ongoing issue. He could just as easily made him play the first quarter, gotten his point across, and still saved face for both he and AH.

AH was clearly upset, and not giving any effort. And even though he's wrong to cop that attitude, Shanahan has painted himself into a corner, where he now has to prolong this drama, so he doesn't appear weak. He could have easily, and rightly, declared victory, and diffused the situation, by just pulling AH after the first period.

- c'mon JSPB - this is BS and you know it
Haynesworth needs to realize that he needs his coaches a whole lot more than they need him - so far, he has let everyone down, big time - all he's shown is that he's a loser

No, it's not BS. What's BS is that you think it's somehow coaches that win games in the NFL. A coach's influence can only go so far, but ultimately it's the players who must play the game. The coach can choose his players, game-plan a perfect strategy, and get everyone fired up, but if the players don't execute, the team will still lose. I was saying that Shanahan had an obvious "out" that would have ended this drama, but he didn't take it because he wanted to teach AH a lesson, and I think that is detrimental to the team.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:32 am**

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I have no problem with him being conditioned.

I just hope that this is more business related than it is personal... It's on the fence. Now I'm not going against Shanny or anything but I'm just hoping it's not being done to the point that it becomes a detriment to the team as a whole. At some point, I hope for this to be over and for them to move on.

It's a fair question to ask. But he's made a living showing up for half the game and skating the rest w/o being willing to condition better and after the 21 million payday appears to be making him worse, not better. Shanahan's not accepting it. The standard seems clear and business objective we want a full time lineman for the 40-100 mil we're going to pay him. Clearly Shanahan wanted effort in the game and didn't get it. Little sobby Fat Albert's not getting his way this time by steadfastly refusing to put in a consistent effort. That seems all business to me.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:39 am**

Deadskins wrote:AH was clearly upset, and not giving any effort. And even though he's wrong to cop that attitude, Shanahan has painted himself into a corner

Nonsense. AH has given minimal effort at every step of the way and is once again clearly just not in shape to play an entire game. It was AH who after all the loafing had a chance to show Shannahan he's committed and in true form once again passed. Everyone else worked for months to show Shannahan what they've got. Fat Albert wasn't willing to play one 60 minute game against scrubs to do it. That Shannahan should have caved when it was clear Fat Albert again wasn't going to bust his butt AGAIN so "Shannahan" didn't paint himself in a corner is preposterous.. Fat Albert has done nothing to start and again clearly is not fit to play an entire game. This is 100% on him, not Shannahan for asking him to do his job.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:18 am**

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Deadskins wrote:AH was clearly upset, and not giving any effort. And even though he's wrong to cop that attitude, Shanahan has painted himself into a corner

Nonsense. AH has given minimal effort at every step of the way and is once again clearly just not in shape to play an entire game. It was AH who after all the loafing had a chance to show Shannahan he's committed and in true form once again passed. Everyone else worked for months to show Shannahan what they've got. Fat Albert wasn't willing to play one 60 minute game against scrubs to do it. That Shannahan should have caved when it was clear Fat Albert again wasn't going to bust his butt AGAIN so "Shannahan" didn't paint himself in a corner is preposterous.. Fat Albert has done nothing to start and again clearly is not fit to play an entire game. This is 100% on him, not Shannahan for asking him to do his job.

I disagree. I acknowledge that AH is clearly in the wrong, but I think Shanahan could have had his cake and eaten it too. Now, he can't let this drama end, even if he wanted to. I suppose you disagree with Haslett and AH's teammates, that when he is playing he makes our defense better, in shape or not. I don't think 3/4 of a preseason football game is going to cure AH's conditioning problems, so the excuse that he made him play the full game to get him in shape is bunk. I understand that you can't tolerate insubordination, and so you want to see AH punished for his lack of respect, but I think Shanahan could have proven his point just as easily by making him play only the first quarter. Making him play the entire game was just overkill and vindictive, and ensures the drama will carry over to the regular season. Probably, the only out now, is to trade AH, but this fiasco has hurt his value on the market. Any way you look at it, this isn't a positive for the Redskins, which is my only concern.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:32 am**

Deadskins wrote:I suppose you disagree with Haslett and AH's teammates, than when he is playing, he makes our defense better, in shape or not

You can suppose whatever you want since you're not drawing it from my argument. You can suppose my bathroom is yellow too. But my argument wasn't that he doesn't make the D better when he's in there, it's that he can't be in there for an entire game and it's because of his own consistent lack of commitment to get in shape through the off-season, training camp or pre-season.

Deadskins wrote:I understand that you can't tolerate insubordination, and so you want to see AH punished for his lack of respect

Yes, and you understand my bathroom is yellow. Right, if I'm upset lard butt can't play an entire game, I want him punished for insubordination...

Deadskins wrote:Shanahan could have proven his point just as easily by making him play only the first quarter. Making him play the entire game was just overkill, and vindictive, and ensures the drama will carry over to the regular season. Probably, the only out now, is to trade AH, but this fiasco has hurt his value on the market. Any way you look at it, this isn't a positive for the Redskins, which is my only concern.

Haynesworth didn't show up for voluntary OTA's, Haynesworth didn't show up for manditory OTAs, Haynesworth didn't show up for camp in shape, Haynesworth couldn't pass a basic conditioning test, Haynesworth got a medical condition as a result of turning it on in the heat when he was out of shape, Haynesworth didn't bust his butt in other pre-season games. And the problem is Shannahan for not caving because at this point Haynesworth has made clear he's not going to work for it. Clearly Haynesworth is no more ready to play an entire game then he was last year. That is the expectation and it's got nothing to do with him making the D better on half the plays or being insubordinate or vindictive.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:38 am**

I agree that an amped up Haynesworth makes the Defense better, but I watched Haynesworth closely during the Cards game, and his effort level was pathetic. And it doesn't matter that it was the final preseason game, or that he felt he was being punished, or whatever.

I think the Shanahan team watched last year's film and saw what I saw ... 3rd and goal inside the 5, and Haynesworth on the sideline, gassed. That is TOTALLY unacceptable for a star player in a critical scoring situation.

I remember the old days with guys like Dexter Manley ... 110% full throttle on every down ... busting their rear ends and making huge plays in critical situations ... coming up with the big sack at the very moment you need it the most.

What you have to understand is that when you have the center piece of your defense only playing half time ... it allows the offensive line to recuperate while he's on the sideline "resting up". Haynesworth is a disgrace .... he was a disgrace when he stomped on the head of the Cowboy ... and he's a disgrace now.

I'm totally behind MS on this ... players are expected to put forth maximum effort when they are on the field ... they don't get to pick and choose WHEN to play hard, and you don't need players that take plays off .... in this league, games are often decided one way or the other, based on just a few plays during the game, and you don't know which plays are going to be the deciding factor.

Shanahan has made it clear what he expects ... and it isn't too much to ask. And he owes that to the rest of the team ... everyone must be able to trust the guy next to him is putting out maximum effort, and if one guy is skating ... taking plays off .... that's not the message you want to send to the team ... Mr. Special is in charge .... no ... Fat Albert, get used to the wood ... you will sit if you can't be trusted to play.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:28 am**

CanesSkins26 wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
People close to Haynesworth on the team insist he would play hard against the Cowboys. The Redskins are better with Haynesworth on the field, two of his teammates said Saturday, adding they hope Shanahan views the situation similarly.

That's why I wish Shanahan would have just pulled AH from the last preseason game after the 1st qurter. Clearly AH's heart was not in it, but I think it would be against Dallas.

I know, I know. Shanahan can't show weakness, and he says he wanted to get Al reps, but I cant get past the thought that making him play the entire game with the 2nd and 3rd teamers was a vindictive move on Shanahan's part, just to show AH who's the boss. By forcing him to play the whole game, he was needlessly hurting AH's pride and making this into an ongoing issue. He could just as easily made him play the first quarter, gotten his point across, and still saved face for both he and AH.

AH was clearly upset, and not giving any effort. And even though he's wrong to cop that attitude, Shanahan has painted himself into a corner, where he now has to prolong this drama, so he doesn't appear weak. He could have easily, and rightly, declared victory, and diffused the situation, by just pulling AH after the first period.

I think that you're dead on in your assessment.

Dude, it's the military mindset (I'm not a veteran...ok)...but you break them down and teach them to be good soldiers.

Shanny wants one or the other:
1. Al to shut up, play hard, be a good/great soldier
2. be rid of him in a trade and get rid of this "cancer" as some say

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:01 pm**

tribeofjudah wrote:Shanny wants one or the other:
1. Al to shut up, play hard, be a good/great soldier
2. be rid of him in a trade and get rid of this "cancer" as some say

I'm not sure he needs to "shut up" so much as "show up." What is the point in having a "half game" changing defenseman you can't count on when you need him? It has really nothing to do with anything else. He doesn't want to get in NFL shape. That is the issue.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:45 pm**

Just like before he could practice at Camp - this fat slob needs to show Haslett and Shanahan that he will be able to play when they want him to play AND at the level that they want - NOT what he thinks is 'OK"

So ... this slob has to show in practice this week that he's ready, willing and able to play both DT AND DE at a much improved level than he has shown thus far - UNTIL he can do that, despite what some fans here think, I think Shanahan is right and should not play his fat arse - this defense is ONLY better with the fat slob when he can do what the coaches want him to do - NOT BEFORE :roll:

good for you, Mike - keep the heat on that fat slob

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:09 pm**

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
tribeofjudah wrote:Shanny wants one or the other:
1. Al to shut up, play hard, be a good/great soldier
2. be rid of him in a trade and get rid of this "cancer" as some say

I'm not sure he needs to "shut up" so much as "show up." What is the point in having a "half game" changing defenseman you can't count on when you need him? It has really nothing to do with anything else. He doesn't want to get in NFL shape. That is the issue.

His mouh and negativity will cause dissention....so yes, he needs to shut it up. Gag order on Fat Al.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 2:06 pm**

OK, you all seem to vote for the "trade him" option, because that is the only way we are going to be rid of this cancer at this point. The point I was trying to make is that this in-fighting between the coach and a "star" player can only serve to divide the team, even if one side is totally on the wrong side of the argument. Shanahan can sit Haynesworth all year if he likes, that's his prerogative as HC, but I don't think that's going to magically change AH's attitude problem. And the longer this drama goes on, the more AH's trade value goes down, so even that option hurts the team in the long run.

Believe me, I wish AH had attended the OTA's, been at the team's facilities all summer getting into "football shape," and gave 110% on every play of every game. But short of inventing a time machine, and going back and not signing him, I don't see any positive way out of this debacle now. I just hope we can somehow get a team to trade us a player who can have the impact on those around him, that AH can have. I just don't see it happening.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 2:51 pm**

Deadskins wrote:OK, you all seem to vote for the "trade him" option...

There is no time machine option as you pointed out. There is unfortunately no cut him option or trade him option. Shannahan is doing the only thing he can at this point. This thing about Shannahan being "stubborn" is nonsense, Shannahan has lowered the bar as far as he can. Fat Butt was down to working for one game to show he was ready. No one else could have dogged it through the whole offseason and camp and pre-season and gotten away with one game of work to "prove" himself.

What Haynesworth showed was that he's not in shape. It wasn't about "obeying" Shannahan, it was about showing he was ready for the season. He's not. But we've paid him too much and he is too good to cut now. But that doesn't mean what Lord Lard Belly is doing is OK and Shanahan should just accept it as all he's going to get. AH is getting special treatment, he's not being held to a higher standard, he's being held to a far lower standard then anyone else. And he's failing that and it's unacceptable.

Can you imagine the impact it would have for AH to be available as much as any other starting lineman? Well, we're paying for that...

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:15 pm**

If this is true then it is personal and Shanahan has taken this too far. He has proved his point! This can cause divide in the team and I feel he's not focusing as much on Dallas as they should be. Thats the number 1 goal beating Dallas.

There are plenty of guys on this team in preseason that looked gas and Kemo, Carriker, and Golston haven't pushed a fly all 3 games they played in.

If this is false, team representatives need not sit on bad news and either confirm or deny reports immediately instead of letting the media add wings to the story.

This is what I don't like about the entire situation. Haynesworth is wrong but the organization seems to like to get the media attention instead of deading it and handling the majority of it behind closed doors. Last year Jim Zorn situation could have been deaded but they let the media run with it and destroy the stability of the team throughout the entire season.

step up management!

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:17 pm**

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Deadskins wrote:OK, you all seem to vote for the "trade him" option...

There is no time machine option as you pointed out. There is unfortunately no cut him option or trade him option. Shannahan is doing the only thing he can at this point. This thing about Shannahan being "stubborn" is nonsense, Shannahan has lowered the bar as far as he can. Fat Butt was down to working for one game to show he was ready. No one else could have dogged it through the whole offseason and camp and pre-season and gotten away with one game of work to "prove" himself.

What Haynesworth showed was that he's not in shape. It wasn't about "obeying" Shannahan, it was about showing he was ready for the season. He's not. But we've paid him too much and he is too good to cut now. But that doesn't mean what Lord Lard Belly is doing is OK and Shanahan should just accept it as all he's going to get. AH is getting special treatment, he's not being held to a higher standard, he's being held to a far lower standard then anyone else. And he's failing that and it's unacceptable.

Can you imagine the impact it would have for AH to be available as much as any other starting lineman? Well, we're paying for that...

Yes, there is a "trade him" option. It just becomes less palatable as time goes on. I've never said that what AH has done is OK; just the opposite, in fact. I mearly pointed out that Shanahan didn't have to put it on display for an entire game in an attempt to shame AH into giving a damn. That strategy will only hurt the Redskins in the long run. I feel like he had an "out" of this mess that he didn't take. That "out" could have saved face for everybody, rather than make everyone involved dig in their heels. No way is AH going to come around now.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:46 pm**

Deadskins wrote:Yes, there is a "trade him" option. It just becomes less palatable as time goes on

To who? We tried to trade him. He still has 9 mil guaranteed and he's proven to everyone he's now the Manny Ramirez of the NFL. Who are we going to trade him to exactly?

Deadskins wrote:I mearly pointed out that Shanahan didn't have to put it on display for an entire game in an attempt to shame AH into giving a damn. That strategy will only hurt the Redskins in the long run. I feel like he had an "out" of this mess that he didn't take. That "out" could have saved face for everybody, rather than make everyone involved dig in their heels. No way is AH going to come around now.

Your strategy was for Shanahan to take him out after the first quarter. I realize you only see it in terms of ego, delivering a message. But I keep telling you our view is that AH needed the work and he needed to show he was ready for the season. I understand you don't want to see this as anything but an ego match, but your argument would work better if you didn't just keep ignoring what we're telling you. Address the point he needed the work and why you don't think so, don't just keep repeating it's nothing but an ego match when that's not our argument.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 4:10 pm**

Conditioning is probably the single most important thing in all of sports. AH needed the game time to help get him ready for the season, because he had missed so much practice time. Seems pretty simple to me.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 5:37 pm**

I don't care how they do it, but they need to get this situation resolved. Despite his poor attitude and shortcomings, we need Haynesworth on defense. Our DL without him is pretty damn poor and the starting three of Kemo, Carriker, and Golston have not looked good at all this preseason. They've gotten no push up front and accounted for a whopping total of 10 tackles. Daniels and Holiday haven't looked any better. The only one that has looked halfway decent has been Anthony Bryant.