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

riggofan wrote:
I don't care if the Skins get rid of him or not, but I hope they take a stand and refuse a trade unless he returns some of that cash.

SkinsJock wrote: hopefully they will 'manage' this in the best interests of this franchise going forward

SkinsJock wrote:Haynesworth is hopefully going to learn that this is a team game and the old way of doing business here and lying or mis-leading players by the Redskins' FO stopped when the new guys came to town

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

The more I read up on this... The more it seems that the new regime is being unreasonable too.

This is not a one sided affair of a player being a jerk.

VRIEL1 wrote:Personally I'd keep him. Atleast for now.

I'd make him pay a fine for each day he's abscent from manditory camp.
Then in July if he doesn't show up I'd fine him each day then also. I'd make up my choice come July as to what I wanted to do with him. But I'd probably be thinking along the lines of making him ride the bench like Arrington did and let him hear the fans yelling at him. Maybe a couple of games. If he didn't get his act together then I'd trade him to a crappy team who does not run the 3-4 and does not look to be in the play offs. I'd take whatever they would give even if it's simply a 7th round draft pick.

No way do I simply cut him. No way do I even give AH what he wants. AH wants to pay back all the money and buy back his contract then that might be the only other way he would leave my team.

I agree 100%. Teams are going to have to take a stand against all these players who refuse to honor their contract. Part of this problem is organizational since the Redskins tend to overpay for everything, but as a professional, a player should have the ethics to at least show up for work.

Countertrey wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Let's skip over the surface issues here, the root of the issue is this...

1.

Speck said Haynesworth's desire to leave Washington after only one season is rooted more in his belief that he was lied to from the beginning of his relationship with the team.

This is more or less true...

Chris, if you have facts to back that up, why don't you put them on the table. You are relying on the word of Fat Al's agent... who is now in pure damage control mode, and is spinning as fast as he can.

How has he been lied to "from the beginning"? How is he being lied to NOW?

Where in his contract is he told that the Redskins Defensive scheme will be held hostage to Al's wishes?

CanesSkins26 wrote:

I agree 100%. Teams are going to have to take a stand against all these players who refuse to honor their contract. Part of this problem is organizational since the Redskins tend to overpay for everything, but as a professional, a player should have the ethics to at least show up for work.

The Big Al situation aside, why should players have to honor contracts if teams don't? Players are cut (and therefore not paid all the money in their contracts) prior to the end of their contracts all the time. It goes both ways.

Fletcher: Haynesworth's decision to skip minicamp is 'very selfish'

With rain falling fast, the Redskins left the field after less than 30 minutes of practice on Wednesday. Following the abbreviated practice, several players addressed Albert Haynesworth's absence, and perhaps none was as outspoken as linebacker London Fletcher, who called Haynesworth "selfish" and said the highly-compensated defensive tackle "can't be depended upon."

Fletcher is the unquestioned leader of the unit, and when he speaks, it's usually worth listening to. He didn't hold anything back when discussing Haynesworth and the defensive tackle's decision to skip the mandatory minicamp.

"I agree with the assessment that Albert has made a very selfish decision. When you play a team sport, you have to look at it and think about everybody involved in the situation. This is not golf, tennis, things like that where it's an all-about-you sport. What he's decided to do is make a decision based all about him. It's no different than his attitude and his approach to last year's defense, about wanting everything to revolve around him and him making plays. And if it didn't benefit him, he wasn't really willing to do it."

Asked if the locker room could embrace Haynesworth should he return, Fletcher said:
"Obviously, he's under contract with the Washington Redskins. From a business standpoint, I don't see them giving him $32 million and trading him or giving him away. He has the option to give the money back if he really doesn't want to be here. He could always give the money back. But once he decided to take money from this organization, he's a Washington Redskin. I say, yeah, he can come back if he shows he's willing to buy into what we're doing, if he's going to be on-board with what we're trying to do. One man is not going to stop what we're trying to accomplish this year. One man is not going to stop what we're going to accomplish this year. We've got big goals set for us this year, high aspirations. Football is going to be played with him or without him. We're going to play some good football.

Obviously, we want him to be a part of it, but he has to stop being selfish."

Fletcher said he wasn't surprised by Haynesworth's decision, given his past actions and attitudes.

"He can say what he wants to say about him not wanting to be here, wanting to be traded, things like that. There's ways he can not be a Redskin. Give the money back, I'm sure they'd take it. We'll move on without him. I want teammates who I can depend on, who I can count on, who in the fourth quarter of a situation, I know is going to be there to make a play or to do his job that the defense calls -- whether it's responsibilities holding up a lineman or penetrating a gap... I need guys I can depend on. We need people we can depend on. At the end of the day, right now, he's shown that he can't be depended upon."

stacylee12 wrote:What, pray tell, is the new regime supposed to do?

You want Super Bowl winning head coach Mike Shanahan to say, "I'm sorry, Mr. Haynesworth, you are right. Why don't you come over to this board here and draw up what you would like to see us do on defense this year..."???

You know, Coach Shanahan might just be interested in what AH has to say except HE IS NOT IN CAMP TO SAY IT!

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:I can care less who's at fault here; Shan/Bruce or Albert. It doesn't matter whatsoever. I personally feel if the coach says "Joe, your gonna be doing this from now on".. I'd be like "Aite coach, just teach me and I'll learn"... after practice is done I'll go to my Mercedes, sit down on that soft leather, put on the AC, tune the radio to 96.3 and listen to some Luther..close my eyes and think to myself "damn, it sux I have to learn this all over but wow, I have big money.. so lemme go buy another car just to remind myself of what I have"

I take issue with that train of thought, money is relative.

There's a homeless man somewhere in this world that would eat giraffe poop for the rest of his life for the money I make. Money is relative.

Haynesworth could make this money somewhere else and was actually offered more money by another team.

I don't know of any sensible adult that would put his aspirations/goals on the back burner for a company that they felt like wasn't using him properly.

I guarantee you if we got a new management team at my job and they changed my role, I'd be looking for a new job. That wasn't what I was hired to do, it doesn't fall in line with my career goals/path and I KNOW I could make this money somewhere else and prolly get more.

CanesSkins26 wrote:I think that this all stems from last season.

frankcal20 wrote:

Fletcher: Haynesworth's decision to skip minicamp is 'very selfish'

With rain falling fast, the Redskins left the field after less than 30 minutes of practice on Wednesday. Following the abbreviated practice, several players addressed Albert Haynesworth's absence, and perhaps none was as outspoken as linebacker London Fletcher, who called Haynesworth "selfish" and said the highly-compensated defensive tackle "can't be depended upon."

Fletcher is the unquestioned leader of the unit, and when he speaks, it's usually worth listening to. He didn't hold anything back when discussing Haynesworth and the defensive tackle's decision to skip the mandatory minicamp.

"I agree with the assessment that Albert has made a very selfish decision. When you play a team sport, you have to look at it and think about everybody involved in the situation. This is not golf, tennis, things like that where it's an all-about-you sport. What he's decided to do is make a decision based all about him. It's no different than his attitude and his approach to last year's defense, about wanting everything to revolve around him and him making plays. And if it didn't benefit him, he wasn't really willing to do it."

Asked if the locker room could embrace Haynesworth should he return, Fletcher said:
"Obviously, he's under contract with the Washington Redskins. From a business standpoint, I don't see them giving him $32 million and trading him or giving him away. He has the option to give the money back if he really doesn't want to be here. He could always give the money back. But once he decided to take money from this organization, he's a Washington Redskin. I say, yeah, he can come back if he shows he's willing to buy into what we're doing, if he's going to be on-board with what we're trying to do. One man is not going to stop what we're trying to accomplish this year. One man is not going to stop what we're going to accomplish this year. We've got big goals set for us this year, high aspirations. Football is going to be played with him or without him. We're going to play some good football.

Obviously, we want him to be a part of it, but he has to stop being selfish."

Fletcher said he wasn't surprised by Haynesworth's decision, given his past actions and attitudes.

"He can say what he wants to say about him not wanting to be here, wanting to be traded, things like that. There's ways he can not be a Redskin. Give the money back, I'm sure they'd take it. We'll move on without him. I want teammates who I can depend on, who I can count on, who in the fourth quarter of a situation, I know is going to be there to make a play or to do his job that the defense calls -- whether it's responsibilities holding up a lineman or penetrating a gap... I need guys I can depend on. We need people we can depend on. At the end of the day, right now, he's shown that he can't be depended upon."

That's a really big statement. Give the money back Albert.

frankcal20 wrote:They actually are. They are paid their guaranteed money remaining on their contract. It's up to their agents to get more guaranteed money - See Albert. We're lucky that this is an uncapped year and I think we'll end up eating this bonus - which doesn't hurt us this year at all and any remaining bonus money which I think is really none (can't remember).

langleyparkjoe wrote:..but C I think you got it twisted what I said or maybe I didn't say it proper. I'm saying he needs to realize he's been paid quite a bit of money to act like such a jerk about learning a new system.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

frankcal20 wrote:They actually are. They are paid their guaranteed money remaining on their contract. It's up to their agents to get more guaranteed money - See Albert. We're lucky that this is an uncapped year and I think we'll end up eating this bonus - which doesn't hurt us this year at all and any remaining bonus money which I think is really none (can't remember).

Outside of the "star" players, most every day NFL players don't have all that much guaranteed money in their contracts. Both sides routinely play games with contracts. Denying that is not living in reality.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:..but C I think you got it twisted what I said or maybe I didn't say it proper. I'm saying he needs to realize he's been paid quite a bit of money to act like such a jerk about learning a new system.

I agree. Definitely. He could handle this better, I wish he was. I'm hoping the quotes about Mike aren't true.

I hope a median is reached. I want the best for the team. Most are going to come in here and be lopsided and bash Al. I'm looking at the possible faults from ALL PARTIES and hoping they can all mature. I don't think I'm being unrealistic.

Shanahan speaks on Haynesworth
Posted by Mike Florio on June 16, 2010 11:37 AM ET
Though we expect Redskins coach Mike Shanahan to have plenty to say about defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth's decision not to show up for a mandatory minicamp and to openly seek a trade, Shanahan's first volley contains plenty of potency.

Per Matt Terl, the official team blogger, Shanahan said that the team told Haynesworth he could seek a trade until April 1, and that if he accepted the $21 million payment that came due that date he'd be expected to play any position in the team's 3-4 defense.

Apart from the fact that Shanahan's concession highlights that he previously spoke with forked tongue to the media regarding the topic of a possible Haynesworth trade, the coach's comments contain a certain amount of common sense.

Then again, Shanahan's previous declaration that "[t]here has not been one mention about trading Haynesworth or any other player on this football team since I've been here" makes us wonder whether he's also not telling the truth now about what he told Haynesworth regarding the acceptance of the $21 million.

UPDATE: Terl has corrected his prior tweet. He says that Shanahan would have released Haynesworth prior to April 1.

frankcal20 wrote:

Shanahan speaks on Haynesworth
Posted by Mike Florio on June 16, 2010 11:37 AM ET
Though we expect Redskins coach Mike Shanahan to have plenty to say about defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth's decision not to show up for a mandatory minicamp and to openly seek a trade, Shanahan's first volley contains plenty of potency.

Per Matt Terl, the official team blogger, Shanahan said that the team told Haynesworth he could seek a trade until April 1, and that if he accepted the $21 million payment that came due that date he'd be expected to play any position in the team's 3-4 defense.

Apart from the fact that Shanahan's concession highlights that he previously spoke with forked tongue to the media regarding the topic of a possible Haynesworth trade, the coach's comments contain a certain amount of common sense.

Then again, Shanahan's previous declaration that "[t]here has not been one mention about trading Haynesworth or any other player on this football team since I've been here" makes us wonder whether he's also not telling the truth now about what he told Haynesworth regarding the acceptance of the $21 million.

UPDATE: Terl has corrected his prior tweet. He says that Shanahan would have released Haynesworth prior to April 1.

Then again, Shanahan's previous declaration that "[t]here has not been one mention about trading Haynesworth or any other player on this football team since I've been here" makes us wonder whether he's also not telling the truth now about what he told Haynesworth regarding the acceptance of the $21 million.

frankcal20 wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

frankcal20 wrote:They actually are. They are paid their guaranteed money remaining on their contract. It's up to their agents to get more guaranteed money - See Albert. We're lucky that this is an uncapped year and I think we'll end up eating this bonus - which doesn't hurt us this year at all and any remaining bonus money which I think is really none (can't remember).

Outside of the "star" players, most every day NFL players don't have all that much guaranteed money in their contracts. Both sides routinely play games with contracts. Denying that is not living in reality.

Sure they do. I do that myself. I structure contracts to benefit my client and the other agent does the same. That's being good at your job and proper representation. But there are guarantee's and then there are salaries. The market determines the general value of the player and every year it's different. Teams make offers and players either reject or decline the offer. No one is forced to play. No one is forced to sign.

I understand that lower tiered players will not generate the pay as some of the higher skilled players. That only makes sense. I don't think anyone would deny that or the logic behind that. That's why I'm all for a rookie salary cap because they are overpaid for someone who's never played a down in the NFL and I would rather see the Vets get paid more because of what they've done already.