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

VetSkinsFan wrote:

blowwad wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:I'm thru with Shanahan.

You're right. Suspend Shanahan and let AH coach the team.

What a stupid comment.

I'm thru with Shanahan b/c this has been a ego contest all along. Both of them. Both of them need to put the ego aside and get this damn team straight, but neither will.

Last time I checked, Shanahan is the coach and Albert is just a player. As in the real world, there is also a pecking order in the NFL. Shanahan is Albert's boss whether he likes it or not.

It is not Shanahan's fault that Albert is such a child.

Redskin in Canada wrote:Hallelujah !!!

This decision DEFINES that Mike Shanahan and Bruce Allen run the football operations and Daniel Snyder is following their advice !!!

It is FANTASTIC that an EGOMANIAC who feels that he is ahead of the team does not get paid if he does not abide by the terms of his contract !!!

It is a GREAT decision but it is also a very TIMELY decision !!!

This is a TURNING POINT in policy and modus operandi for the Redskins in OVER A DECADE !!!

This is how you BUILD a TEAM.

In an ideal world, Fat Al would have had the professionalism to abide by the terms of his contract. He would have placed TEAM ahead of himself. It was too much to ask. The guy has the maturity of a junior high school slighted cheerleader.

I am back on the bandwagon. Mike Shanahan, I am back on your side and I BELIEVE that you and Bruce will turn it around. I am not in a hurry. I will be here supporting you all the way.

This is a DEFINING moment for this team and its fans. I am happy to side with my commanding officer and my band of brothers who will fight for the team as much as I will.

HTTR

I'm with you

andyjens89 wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:Hallelujah !!!

This decision DEFINES that Mike Shanahan and Bruce Allen run the football operations and Daniel Snyder is following their advice !!!

It is FANTASTIC that an EGOMANIAC who feels that he is ahead of the team does not get paid if he does not abide by the terms of his contract !!!

It is a GREAT decision but it is also a very TIMELY decision !!!

This is a TURNING POINT in policy and modus operandi for the Redskins in OVER A DECADE !!!

This is how you BUILD a TEAM.

In an ideal world, Fat Al would have had the professionalism to abide by the terms of his contract. He would have placed TEAM ahead of himself. It was too much to ask. The guy has the maturity of a junior high school slighted cheerleader.

I am back on the bandwagon. Mike Shanahan, I am back on your side and I BELIEVE that you and Bruce will turn it around. I am not in a hurry. I will be here supporting you all the way.

This is a DEFINING moment for this team and its fans. I am happy to side with my commanding officer and my band of brothers who will fight for the team as much as I will.

HTTR

I'm with you

Hallelujah and Amen!!!

I'm with ya Brothas!!!!!

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Yes, their job is to advocate player's positions regardless of their agreement with them

NOT NECESSARILY. I'm a Union Steward myself and we take a good hard look at the facts before we file a greivance on behalf of the membership. There are a lot of things we'd LIKE to greive, but which we know we can't win, so we don't waste everyone's time. This may be one of those situations with AH. At least that's what it appears to me from far, far away.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

frankcal20 wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:The Shanahan-Haynesworth relationship was damaged beyond repair when Shanny kept making Haynesworth retake the conditioning test. You can't embarrass a player publicly like that and then expect him to respect you and fall in line. I'm not going to argue whether Shanny was right or wrong with the way that he handled that, but that really killed any chance of Haynesworth being a productive member of this team.

AH embarrassed himself when he wouldn't even show up for mandatory OTA's and has never stopped. This is all on him. No other player could get away with what he has, and there is no way any player should expect to be treated by their own set of rules and no coach would get or deserves respect who would let a player do that to him.

Jamaal Brown did, to an extent. He didn't skip mandatory workouts but he skipped voluntary workouts in an effort to force his way out of New Orleans.

Vincent Jackson and Marcus McNeil both skipped voluntary workouts and mandatory workouts, and it resulted in McNeil getting a very lucrative extensions and Jackson, after being fined and suspended, was welcomed back to the team without any additional drama or fighting between player and coach.

Haynesworth was wrong to skip mandatory workouts, but both sides handled this situation poorly.

How is that working out for SD? Well McNeil is having a subpar, but decent season, VJax played one game and got hurt. Pulled the 'ol Hammy. So I think we could say conditioning is very important and if a coach feels having a guy run a drill that mind you, Greeny passed without even training for it, I would hope a guy who has a 100m contract can do especially since he had been training all offseason. So he said....

My point was that even with disagreements and players skipping voluntary and mandatory workouts, the Chargers were able to fix the situation without going through all of the drama that we have gone through with Haynesworth.

wait, what? you call them not playing for the first 8 weeks fixing it? A.J. smith is the biggest egomaniac in football. you don't think there was drama involved in any of that...you must not live in southern california. and you think shanahan embarrassed haynesworth for making him take the conditioning test over and over again until he passed it? we're talking about the same conditioning test that numerous male and female reporters passed their first try right? haynesworth embarrased himself not passing that test.

if shanahan is so wrong in all this, don't you think there'd be a minnesota vikings fiasco all over again...unnamed players and team "sources" calling for his head? instead you have ACTUAL player calling out haynesworth and are publicly disgruntled with him.

i commend shanahan for cracking the whip when there was no other alternative. i only wish he had done it sooner. just my opinion

Does anyone here think the initial acquisition of Haynesworth was a good idea?

DarthMonk

DarthMonk wrote:Does anyone here think the initial acquisition of Haynesworth was a good idea?

DarthMonk

do you mean at the time or now?

welch wrote:This will be painful, but, so what?

I do not mind pain and sacrifice PROVIDED that the TEAM asa single unit heads in the right direction with great work ethic.

I do not mind losing for a while if it is an investment to produce a winner.

What I could not stand was the ridicule of selfish, over-paid and undisciplined me-first players.

Redskin in Canada wrote:Hallelujah !!!

This decision DEFINES that Mike Shanahan and Bruce Allen run the football operations and Daniel Snyder is following their advice !!!

It is FANTASTIC that an EGOMANIAC who feels that he is ahead of the team does not get paid if he does not abide by the terms of his contract !!!

It is a GREAT decision but it is also a very TIMELY decision !!!

This is a TURNING POINT in policy and modus operandi for the Redskins in OVER A DECADE !!!

This is how you BUILD a TEAM.

In an ideal world, Fat Al would have had the professionalism to abide by the terms of his contract. He would have placed TEAM ahead of himself. It was too much to ask. The guy has the maturity of a junior high school slighted cheerleader.

I am back on the bandwagon. Mike Shanahan, I am back on your side and I BELIEVE that you and Bruce will turn it around. I am not in a hurry. I will be here supporting you all the way.

This is a DEFINING moment for this team and its fans. I am happy to side with my commanding officer and my band of brothers who will fight for the team as much as I will.

HTTR

Couldn't agree more, RiC. I can't see this as anything but a step in the right direction. Haynesworth has no one to blame but himself, and Shanahan is going to be moving on with or without players like him.

Shanny had this planned all along. Season was shakey a few games back. Fat boys attitude has sucked from day 1. The CBA states 4 game suspension max. Duh! Make it five with the sit down last Sunday. Looks like Shanny made his point. Seeing him lay down like a beached whale in the Eagles game did me in. Trade him to the pukes!! he would really fit there in ego land. I am totally behind this. Lets finish off the year with a bit of pride.

Deadskins wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

frankcal20 wrote:Firstly, Something was said in the locker room at half because we saw two defenses in this weekends game. Shannahan doesn't make a tackle. Haslett doesn't make a tackle so until they do and I see player's being put in position to make a play - and they don't - then I'm not going to come down hard on the coaches. Player's make plays. Coaches put player's in position to make those plays. That's it.

So you are saying that coaches have no influence on how the players play? And specifically for Haslett, he IS, in fact, the one that puts those guy in the scheme (also considered position) to make those plays. He is, after all, the defensive coordinator. Or am I misunderstanding the defensive coordinator's responisbilities?

You have no idea what you are talking about. A coordinator puts his players in position to win true so if he is not doing a good job with that, well then blame the DC. Running tackling drills and teaching how to tackle is done in pop warner, junior high school, high school, and most colleges. There is no time spent on teaching pro's to tackle except maybe a tiny bit in pre season if a coach still runs in the hole drills. You are expected to know how to tackle in the pro's.

So, when you draft, as a scout, you need to make sure you are looking at the game film and interviewing the coaches to evaluate technique and soundness of a player. These were clearly not done when drafting over the last 10 years. It was evidenced throughout the game. Most notably on the Jacobs run on like the third play of the game. Kareem Moore was put in position to make a play for a loss, but instead, whiffed (I actually don't know what that was) on tackling Jacobs and the guy ran for like 34 yards. How is that Hasletts fault? It continued throughout the game. Rocky's hit on the TE over the middle, Doughty's missed tackle for loss on Bradshaw, and on and on and on.

I was going to bring it up in another one of your hate posts, but it's really not worth fighting when one side just doesn't understand how things work in the NFL. Their knowledge is based on some HS football they played. So before you start your come back rant, go read a few book about NFL defense and come talk.

I wish you wouldn't act so superior when making such fallacious statements. Any coach worth his salt in the NFL is going to try and improve and correct his players' fundamentals if they think there is something lacking. Have the Skins players been tackling great all season, and suddenly sucked in this one game? You're blaming the scouts? OK, sure.

If superior is knowing something about how a professional team practices, then I am guilty. Sorry, but it's a fact. Call in to Pat Kirwin, Shottenheimer, or any other coach on sirius and ask him if you don't believe me. If you honestly think that tackling hasn't plagued this team for years, then you are guilty.

Redskin in Canada wrote:Hallelujah !!!

This decision DEFINES that Mike Shanahan and Bruce Allen run the football operations and Daniel Snyder is following their advice !!!

It is FANTASTIC that an EGOMANIAC who feels that he is ahead of the team does not get paid if he does not abide by the terms of his contract !!!

It is a GREAT decision but it is also a very TIMELY decision !!!

This is a TURNING POINT in policy and modus operandi for the Redskins in OVER A DECADE !!!

This is how you BUILD a TEAM.

In an ideal world, Fat Al would have had the professionalism to abide by the terms of his contract. He would have placed TEAM ahead of himself. It was too much to ask. The guy has the maturity of a junior high school slighted cheerleader.

I am back on the bandwagon. Mike Shanahan, I am back on your side and I BELIEVE that you and Bruce will turn it around. I am not in a hurry. I will be here supporting you all the way.

This is a DEFINING moment for this team and its fans. I am happy to side with my commanding officer and my band of brothers who will fight for the team as much as I will.

HTTR

One of the best from you RIC.

Mike dropped the ball on this from the get-go. Both parties are at fault here, the majority of it is on Haynesworth but... Mike, being who he is and in the position he is, should have been the bigger man. Being the bigger man doesn't always have to be able to thump his chest at the end.

Mike has won nothing by doing this. Nothing at all. Albert has lost too. This is a shame.

Personally, I think this season was a missed opportunity, and it began day 1 with the decision to revamp both offense and defense at the same time. None of the front 7 was suited for the 34 .... and Haynesworth's issues revolved around that POOR decision ... right out of the blocks. Frankly, Haynesworth was right for btching about it.

The fact is ... just the offense should have been the entire focus after securing McNabb, and play the defense your personnel was best suited. Last time I freaking checked ... congress passed no law requiring the Redskins to switch to a 34 defense!!!!!!!!!!!!

The defense ... filled with d-lineman that can play the 43 ... and ZERO that can play the 34 .... YES I SAID ZERO CAN PLAY THE 34 as has been proven by their inability to stop the run or rush the passer ..... and part of that comes from your linebackers that also play well in the 43 and struggle with the 34 ... what really happened is that ONE PLAYER ... LaRon Landry was switched back to his natural position, while everyone else that makes up the front 7 were moved OUT OF THEIR NATURAL POSITION. And what did this accomplish? We got the worst Redskin defense in 30 years.

Go look at statistics over the past 20-30 years ... and tell me which defenses out of the entire NFL gave up an average of over 400 yards a game? I went back as far as the stats would on NFL.com and the only one I see is the old Baltimore Colts ... a long time ago.

So, there you all are, wetting yourselves over the axing of Haynesworth, with the last place defense in the league that obviously needs a complete OVERHAUL to play a 34 ..... and an offense that needs the same thing? OOOOOHHHH so freaking exciting .... Ya'll sound like a bunch of freaking Dallas Cowboy fans who've smoked too much whacky weed.

Haynesworth is a spoiled brat ... and he certainly isn't faultless, BUT .. Shanahan's handling of the situation was typical Napoleon syndrome ... he's punished and poked Fat Albert in the eye EVERY CHANCE HE GOT ... to the detriment of a defense that couldn't afford to ... 1) play a 3-4 in the first place, and, 2) couldn't afford to play a 4-3 with Albert on the bench.

And I don't think it's a big mystery why the defense came out flat against the Giants .... deep down they realized that deactivating Albert stated very clearly that Shanahan's EGO is more important to him than the team, and they responded accordingly. A must win game against the NYG ... and it's more important to Shanahan to drive home a point, rather then do whatever it takes to win?

Of little notice to the experts here ... Brandon Jacobs .... you know ... that guy who rushed for over 10 yards per attempt? He came over to Haynesworth after the game and said they (the Giants) were glad he didn't play.

That makes me SICK ..... and I've seen enough of that little beady eyed EGO maniac coach and his Son, and their collective arrogance, to last me a lifetime.

Save me a seat on the bandwagon that makes ONE IOTA OF SENSE ... this one ain't a bandwagon ... this rickety wooden nightmare couldn't carry a harmonica ... let alone an entire band.

Yup, the decision to run the 3-4 was disastrous for a variety of reasons. Orakpo is awesome, but possibly an elite 4-3 end. Andre Carter is a stud in a 4-3 and a huge bust in the 3-4. Cornelius Griffin was a solid DT in the 4-3 but released when we went to the 3-4 and Albert Haynesworth was an absolute BEAST in a 4-3 defense and was left without a position in the 3-4... and because he dared assert his rights as a player Shanahan is killing his trade value, value in free agency and credibility as a player.

chiefhog44 wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

frankcal20 wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

frankcal20 wrote:A coach develops a game plan each week. A coach works with player's during the week to put them in the right position for the coming game. Of course coaches have influence on how player's play but coaches can not make a guy try to tackle a guy like Jacobs up around the shoulders like Rocky did this Sunday. If you look at Sunday's game, especially in the 1st half, the player's were in position to make the play but they didn't. What else can any coach do. Well, there is one thing he can do and that's put that player on the bench. See Phillip Buchanan and Rocky who were both benched for either the entire or part of the game for CRAP play and lack of tackling fundamentals.

And the coach doesn't instill and reinforce those tackling fundementals?

And I thought Buchanon was hurt.<edit> you're right, he was benched.

Sure the coach teaches fundamentals but let me ask you this. Should a coach be teaching professional football players how to tackle at this point? Most have been playing for 20+ years. I would hope that they would know how to tackle at this point. I'm sure at video session yesterday, players saw how pathetic they looked trying to tackle and I'm sorry but I'm not putting that on the coaches.

It's the coaches' jobs to ensure that the standards are upheld.

You are grasping for a life preserver. Let me help you out. Say it with me slowly.

Sorry, I, am, wrong.

So.... these guys execute 100% of the time and they NEVER need reminders/refreshers? I got something to say slowly to you, but it's not appropriate in this forum.

Deadskins wrote:

Skinsfan55 wrote:Schottenheimer couldn't get Jeff George to play and he was the starting QB. He broke down game film with him personally and STILL couldn't get through to George.

Sometimes you just get a bad egg... like Haynesworth

Um, no. Banks was Marty's QB, not George.

He inheritied George just as Shanahan inheritied Haynesworth. And he won with Banks not with George.

DarthMonk

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Mike dropped the ball on this from the get-go. Both parties are at fault here, the majority of it is on Haynesworth but... Mike, being who he is and in the position he is, should have been the bigger man. Being the bigger man doesn't always have to be able to thump his chest at the end.

Mike has won nothing by doing this. Nothing at all. Albert has lost too. This is a shame.

This is exactly what I was trying to get at Chris, but I wasn't nearly as eloquent.

I never solely blamed Shanahan, but I don't solely blame big Al either.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:Does anyone here think the initial acquisition of Haynesworth was a good idea?

DarthMonk

do you mean at the time or now?

Take your pick. I work with a Titan fan. He was bummed (back then). So was I- another high priced free agent - just what we needed ...

DarthMonk

DarthMonk wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:Does anyone here think the initial acquisition of Haynesworth was a good idea?

DarthMonk

do you mean at the time or now?

Take your pick. I work with a Titan fan. He was bummed (back then). So was I- another high priced free agent - just what we needed ...

DarthMonk

I wasn't very happy in the beginning, but I was excited with the potential he brought. Obviously hindsight, it was a bad idea.

DarthMonk wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:Does anyone here think the initial acquisition of Haynesworth was a good idea?

DarthMonk

do you mean at the time or now?

Take your pick. I work with a Titan fan. He was bummed (back then). So was I- another high priced free agent - just what we needed ...

DarthMonk

I didn't think it was a good idea at the time.

Although my prediction was that he'd spend most of the time standing on the sidelines in sweatpants due to injury . . . I didn't see the total incompetence and team cancer stuff coming.

Just in case there is the slightest shadow of a doubt ...

The Redskins couldn't make Albert Haynesworth care

Get this straight: there is no "managing" Albert Haynesworth. There is no way to make this guy perform. No amount of coaxing, or cute psychological ploys, can make him play hard for the Redskins. No concession can soothe his swollen ego, and no scheme will make him happy. Redskins Coach Mike Shanahan was absolutely right to suspend Haynesworth without pay for the last four games of the season. It was that, or become his doormat.

This week, Haynesworth turned in one of his worst practices to date. It was so bad that Shanahan called him into his office. "We've got to pick up the pace," Shanahan warned Haynesworth. "To give yourself a chance to play well on the weekend, you have to have a better practice." Now, you might expect one of the highest paid defensive players in the NFL to bear down, what with the playoffs on the line. Instead, Haynesworth was unresponsive. The next day, guess what? He didn't practice at all. He said he felt sick.

The Haynesworth apologists will say there are two sides to this story. But there aren't. There is only one: Haynesworth is the very definition of "conduct detrimental to the team." He's a daily affront to every dedicated player in the locker room, out to do the least amount of work while collecting the most amount of money. He cheats on his contract and he cheats his teammates. Indolence is written all over him, and so is insubordination.
…
Haynesworth's agent, Chad Speck, claims the reasons the Redskins have given for the suspension "are vague and without merit." Actually, we've seen the reasons, time and again, all over the big screen. We've all seen Haynesworth riding carts off the field with a towel on his head, or resting on one knee. We all saw him lying face down in the grass and refusing to get up against the Philadelphia Eagles, while the play was still going on. We saw the picture of him in the Tap Room late Thursday night, when he was well enough to have a drink.

We heard him railing against his coaches, because they don't "use" him right. It hasn't mattered whether the coach is Shanahan or Jim Zorn, whether the defensive coordinator is Greg Blache or Jim Haslett, whether the alignment is a 3-4 or a 4-3.

The list of things Haynesworth won't do is long. He won't attend voluntary offseason workouts. He won't attend mandatory minicamp, either. He won't play in the base 3-4 defense. He has told Shanahan he doesn't want to play in the nickel package on first or second downs. "And the reason he doesn't want to play in those situations is, he wants to play in passing situations, not running situations," Shanahan says. "I've never had a player say anything like that to me before." In fact, if Shanahan yielded to all of Haynesworth's refusals and preferences, he would play no more than 12 or 15 downs.

chiefhog44 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

frankcal20 wrote:Firstly, Something was said in the locker room at half because we saw two defenses in this weekends game. Shannahan doesn't make a tackle. Haslett doesn't make a tackle so until they do and I see player's being put in position to make a play - and they don't - then I'm not going to come down hard on the coaches. Player's make plays. Coaches put player's in position to make those plays. That's it.

So you are saying that coaches have no influence on how the players play? And specifically for Haslett, he IS, in fact, the one that puts those guy in the scheme (also considered position) to make those plays. He is, after all, the defensive coordinator. Or am I misunderstanding the defensive coordinator's responisbilities?

You have no idea what you are talking about. A coordinator puts his players in position to win true so if he is not doing a good job with that, well then blame the DC. Running tackling drills and teaching how to tackle is done in pop warner, junior high school, high school, and most colleges. There is no time spent on teaching pro's to tackle except maybe a tiny bit in pre season if a coach still runs in the hole drills. You are expected to know how to tackle in the pro's.

So, when you draft, as a scout, you need to make sure you are looking at the game film and interviewing the coaches to evaluate technique and soundness of a player. These were clearly not done when drafting over the last 10 years. It was evidenced throughout the game. Most notably on the Jacobs run on like the third play of the game. Kareem Moore was put in position to make a play for a loss, but instead, whiffed (I actually don't know what that was) on tackling Jacobs and the guy ran for like 34 yards. How is that Hasletts fault? It continued throughout the game. Rocky's hit on the TE over the middle, Doughty's missed tackle for loss on Bradshaw, and on and on and on.

I was going to bring it up in another one of your hate posts, but it's really not worth fighting when one side just doesn't understand how things work in the NFL. Their knowledge is based on some HS football they played. So before you start your come back rant, go read a few book about NFL defense and come talk.

I wish you wouldn't act so superior when making such fallacious statements. Any coach worth his salt in the NFL is going to try and improve and correct his players' fundamentals if they think there is something lacking. Have the Skins players been tackling great all season, and suddenly sucked in this one game? You're blaming the scouts? OK, sure.

If superior is knowing something about how a professional team practices, then I am guilty. Sorry, but it's a fact. Call in to Pat Kirwin, Shottenheimer, or any other coach on sirius and ask him if you don't believe me. If you honestly think that tackling hasn't plagued this team for years, then you are guilty.

What is it about members of this board and reading comprehension? Your comments earlier implied that the tackling problems in the Giants game has no bearing on the coaching the players receive at the NFL level. My question about them suddenly sucking at tackling was rhetorical. I was asking to point out to you that if this is an ongoing problem, then the coaches are at fault for not teaching proper technique after first seeing this problem. I don't blame the DC so much as the individual position coaches, because the DC is more about schemes than individual coaching, but he is the boss, and so is ultimately responsible for the the coaching under him.

And by superior, I meant your comments to another poster to the effect of "come back when you know something about NFL coaching," when you obviously have a serious lack of understanding in the area yourself.

DarthMonk wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Skinsfan55 wrote:Schottenheimer couldn't get Jeff George to play and he was the starting QB. He broke down game film with him personally and STILL couldn't get through to George.

Sometimes you just get a bad egg... like Haynesworth

Um, no. Banks was Marty's QB, not George.

He inheritied George just as Shanahan inheritied Haynesworth. And he won with Banks not with George.

DarthMonk

But Marty was in full charge of the team, and did not play George by The Danny's decree as Norv had done before him.

Redskin in Canada wrote:The Redskins couldn't make Albert Haynesworth care

There have been a lot of complaints that Shanahan could have gotten Haynesworth to play (and stay motivated) if he was a better coach. People saying that "motivation doesn't have to come at the expense of discipline."

But . . .


What if Shanahan was getting about as much motivation out of Haynesworth as was possible given the circumstances? He actually did yield to a pretty large number of Haynesworth's requests: we didn't see him in the 3-4 base package, he played primarily on passing downs — I mean, short of changing the defensive scheme on account of one player's personal demands, what else could they have done for him?

And it wasn't all negative reinforcement. There were several reports that, when Haynesworth had a good week in practice, Shanahan pointed that out in front of the team. He also got a ton of credit for his play against Chicago. A player should be able to feed off of legitimate praise like that . . .

Just a thought.