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

gspdark1 wrote:The Titans are claiming the 'Skins tampered with Haynesworth. Truth or sour grapes?

gspdark1 wrote:The Titans are claiming the 'Skins tampered with Haynesworth. Truth or sour grapes?

CanesSkins26 wrote: if what we did was tampering then the Bucs tampered too. Haynesworth talked about how he became really comfortable with Tampa Bay's new head coach.

Cooter wrote:There's plenty of opinions here:

http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31180

The Titans have asked the league to investigate the Redskins' February 27 signing of Albert Haynesworth for tampering.

Tennessee claims it has evidence that Washington negotiated with Haynesworth before the official start of free agency. The Titans turned over audio and newspaper articles they deemed incriminating of a Redskins official. The Skins have a close relationship with Haynesworth's agent, Chad Speck, however. It's hard to say if anything will come of this.

SkinsSince96 wrote:This thread is different. Even though it isnt in the OP. The Titans have asked the NFL to look into it. The thread should probably be merged but I understand why he made the thread.

Cooter wrote:

SkinsSince96 wrote:This thread is different. Even though it isnt in the OP. The Titans have asked the NFL to look into it. The thread should probably be merged but I understand why he made the thread.

I wasn't questioning the creation of the thread (not my job), just simply letting everyone know there are more opinions in another thread.

JansenFan wrote:I think its tampering AND sour grapes. Its not like they were going to outbid anyone, anyway. They could have matched our offer. The didn't and instead, are trying to get our draft pick as compensation for their cheapness.

Bob 0119 wrote:For every story, there is a counter story. Try this one from SI:

link

Sports Illustrated wrote:
There is enough rule breaking in the free-agency chase to write three books, but I can tell you that the time on the screen of my MacBook Air was 12:00:06 (six seconds after midnight) when the phone rang in the Back Bay condo of agent Brad Blank Friday morning. I was in the upscale downtown Boston neighborhood with Blank, and on the other end of the phone was Washington vice president of player personnel Vinny Cerrato. The subject was Blank's client, defensive end Chris Canty, who'd been a free agent for all of six seconds.

"Hey, Brad,'' Cerrato said, eschewing pleasantries, "I need to get what you're thinking of numbers-wise so I can go in and talk to [owner] Dan [Snyder] and see if it fits us.''

"It's eight, Vinny, and I don't really care how it's structured if we get to eight,'' Blank said, meaning $8 million per year for a four-, five-, six- or seven-year contract. "You know the deal. I'd like to get him somewhere on a plane tomorrow. You interested?''

"Let me get back to you,'' Cerrato said, and just like that he was gone.

In his living room, Blank, the preppy 48-year-old former Brown roommate of John F. Kennedy Jr., alternated between ESPN and NFL Network on the TV as free agency dawned. On a legal pad he had sketched out the teams he felt were the best shot for Canty. In order, they were:

1. Washington, 2. Tennessee, 3. San Francisco, 4. Seattle, 5. Denver, 6. Dallas, 7. Miami, 8. Green Bay, 9. New York Giants.

The ideal trip, Blank thought, would be Friday in Washington, Saturday in Tennessee and Monday in Seattle. Washington wouldn't be interested if the 'Skins signed defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth, the prize of the crop. And Blank waited. And Canty, sitting home in Charlotte, waited. And his dad, Joe, who was going to take the recruiting trips with his son, waited.

And nothing.

At the scouting combine the previous week, when it's supposed to be against NFL rules for teams to have discussions with agents for soon-to-be free agents, Blank had spoken to a number of teams about Canty, a 6-7 defensive end in a 3-4 defense who some teams thought could play defensive tackle in the 4-3. The teams, ostensibly, were feeling out the agents, and vice versa, about what level of compensation the player might get and what other teams might be interested.

One of the parties interested in Canty was Washington. Blank thought San Francisco, Tennessee and Seattle would also want in. There were others. Teams are smart enough not to blatantly offer contracts at the combine, but some of them come close. In this case, Blank made it clear to anyone asking that he expected the money to come in between $6 million and $8 million a year, hopefully closer to eight.

"Football is a game of supply and demand,'' Blank said. "Chris is a 3-4 end and a lot of teams are going to the 3-4, and there aren't enough good ends out there. So he should be in demand.''

1:08 a.m.: Cerrato rang to ask if Canty would come in for a visit later that day. "Does he like basketball?'' Cerrato said. "The Wizards are in town playing Chicago. I think Obama's going to the game.''

He likes basketball, Blank said, but more to the point, Blank asked if all the rumors were true about the Redskins and Haynesworth.

"We're out,'' said Cerrato. "He's too expensive.''

"Do our numbers make sense?" Blank asked.

Pause. One second, maybe two seconds. "I'll get Eric [negotiator Eric Schaffer] with you in the morning,'' Cerrato said.

Hmmmm. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. But Cerrato said the Redskins would send a private plane to pick up Chris and Joe Canty at the Charlotte airport at 1 p.m., and he'd get back to him with details.

Based on this EYEWITNESS account it would seem that the team didn't start working on Haeynesworth until after midnight. If they had been talking to the agent beforehand, it would seem that AH would've been locked up at 12:01

but that's just my take on it...

Bob 0119 wrote:I posted this in another thread but it goes well here too.

Bob 0119 wrote:For every story, there is a counter story. Try this one from SI:

link

Sports Illustrated wrote:
There is enough rule breaking in the free-agency chase to write three books, but I can tell you that the time on the screen of my MacBook Air was 12:00:06 (six seconds after midnight) when the phone rang in the Back Bay condo of agent Brad Blank Friday morning. I was in the upscale downtown Boston neighborhood with Blank, and on the other end of the phone was Washington vice president of player personnel Vinny Cerrato. The subject was Blank's client, defensive end Chris Canty, who'd been a free agent for all of six seconds.

"Hey, Brad,'' Cerrato said, eschewing pleasantries, "I need to get what you're thinking of numbers-wise so I can go in and talk to [owner] Dan [Snyder] and see if it fits us.''

"It's eight, Vinny, and I don't really care how it's structured if we get to eight,'' Blank said, meaning $8 million per year for a four-, five-, six- or seven-year contract. "You know the deal. I'd like to get him somewhere on a plane tomorrow. You interested?''

"Let me get back to you,'' Cerrato said, and just like that he was gone.

In his living room, Blank, the preppy 48-year-old former Brown roommate of John F. Kennedy Jr., alternated between ESPN and NFL Network on the TV as free agency dawned. On a legal pad he had sketched out the teams he felt were the best shot for Canty. In order, they were:

1. Washington, 2. Tennessee, 3. San Francisco, 4. Seattle, 5. Denver, 6. Dallas, 7. Miami, 8. Green Bay, 9. New York Giants.

The ideal trip, Blank thought, would be Friday in Washington, Saturday in Tennessee and Monday in Seattle. Washington wouldn't be interested if the 'Skins signed defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth, the prize of the crop. And Blank waited. And Canty, sitting home in Charlotte, waited. And his dad, Joe, who was going to take the recruiting trips with his son, waited.

And nothing.

At the scouting combine the previous week, when it's supposed to be against NFL rules for teams to have discussions with agents for soon-to-be free agents, Blank had spoken to a number of teams about Canty, a 6-7 defensive end in a 3-4 defense who some teams thought could play defensive tackle in the 4-3. The teams, ostensibly, were feeling out the agents, and vice versa, about what level of compensation the player might get and what other teams might be interested.

One of the parties interested in Canty was Washington. Blank thought San Francisco, Tennessee and Seattle would also want in. There were others. Teams are smart enough not to blatantly offer contracts at the combine, but some of them come close. In this case, Blank made it clear to anyone asking that he expected the money to come in between $6 million and $8 million a year, hopefully closer to eight.

"Football is a game of supply and demand,'' Blank said. "Chris is a 3-4 end and a lot of teams are going to the 3-4, and there aren't enough good ends out there. So he should be in demand.''

1:08 a.m.: Cerrato rang to ask if Canty would come in for a visit later that day. "Does he like basketball?'' Cerrato said. "The Wizards are in town playing Chicago. I think Obama's going to the game.''

He likes basketball, Blank said, but more to the point, Blank asked if all the rumors were true about the Redskins and Haynesworth.

"We're out,'' said Cerrato. "He's too expensive.''

"Do our numbers make sense?" Blank asked.

Pause. One second, maybe two seconds. "I'll get Eric [negotiator Eric Schaffer] with you in the morning,'' Cerrato said.

Hmmmm. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. But Cerrato said the Redskins would send a private plane to pick up Chris and Joe Canty at the Charlotte airport at 1 p.m., and he'd get back to him with details.

Based on this EYEWITNESS account it would seem that the team didn't start working on Haeynesworth until after midnight. If they had been talking to the agent beforehand, it would seem that AH would've been locked up at 12:01

but that's just my take on it...

CanesSkins26 wrote:

JansenFan wrote:I think its tampering AND sour grapes. Its not like they were going to outbid anyone, anyway. They could have matched our offer. The didn't and instead, are trying to get our draft pick as compensation for their cheapness.

Is it sour grapes or good business on the part of the Titans? If they can get something out of this why not. I think that when the 49ers were found to have tampered with Lance Briggs, the NFL made them switch 3rd round picks with the Bears. So the Bears got a better 3rd rounder.

JansenFan wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

JansenFan wrote:I think its tampering AND sour grapes. Its not like they were going to outbid anyone, anyway. They could have matched our offer. The didn't and instead, are trying to get our draft pick as compensation for their cheapness.

Is it sour grapes or good business on the part of the Titans? If they can get something out of this why not. I think that when the 49ers were found to have tampered with Lance Briggs, the NFL made them switch 3rd round picks with the Bears. So the Bears got a better 3rd rounder.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Getting extra picks for a guy you were going to lose anyway is good business, but ratting out another team for something I would wager everyone -- including the Titans -- have done before is a bit of sour grapes, as well.

VetSkinsFan wrote:
I read this article, too. It's always good practice to research from more than 1 article before forming an opinion IMO.

Irn-Bru wrote:

JansenFan wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

JansenFan wrote:I think its tampering AND sour grapes. Its not like they were going to outbid anyone, anyway. They could have matched our offer. The didn't and instead, are trying to get our draft pick as compensation for their cheapness.

Is it sour grapes or good business on the part of the Titans? If they can get something out of this why not. I think that when the 49ers were found to have tampered with Lance Briggs, the NFL made them switch 3rd round picks with the Bears. So the Bears got a better 3rd rounder.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Getting extra picks for a guy you were going to lose anyway is good business, but ratting out another team for something I would wager everyone -- including the Titans -- have done before is a bit of sour grapes, as well.

That's why, IMO, if a team accuses another of tampering with the expectation of getting a better draft pick, they should be punished should the allegations turn out to be false. E.g., we switch 3rd rounders (or whatever) to the advantage of the Skins, rather than switching draft picks to the advantage of the Titans.

No team, just as no person, should get a free shot at trying to sucker-punch another team with no good reason. If you want to make a serious accusation like that, be prepared to receive punishment if it turns out you were just doing it for kicks.

CanesSkins26 wrote:
The problem there is how do you prove that the allegations were false? Just because there isn't enough evidence for the NFL to determine that a violation of the rules took place doesn't mean that there wasn't in fact a violation.

Bob 0119 wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:
The problem there is how do you prove that the allegations were false? Just because there isn't enough evidence for the NFL to determine that a violation of the rules took place doesn't mean that there wasn't in fact a violation.

The burden of proof should always fall on the accuser. If you don't have enough evidence to prove your allegation than maybe you think twice before unfairly accusing someone just so you can see where the chips fall.

Really that's all this is for the Titans. They are hoping the NFL will find some evidence that they don't have and they'll luck into a draft pick. If the NFL doesn't find anything, than it's no skin off their nose.

Meanwhile, the media gets to hypothesize about the hows, and whys with limitless conjecture until the Redskins are finally, and unceremonously cleared of any wrong-doing.

Endless weeks of stories about what the Redskins "might have" done culminating in a two paragraph article that lasts half a day about how there was no evidence of any tampering.

CanesSkins26 wrote:The problem there is how do you prove that the allegations were false? Just because there isn't enough evidence for the NFL to determine that a violation of the rules took place doesn't mean that there wasn't in fact a violation.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:
The problem there is how do you prove that the allegations were false? Just because there isn't enough evidence for the NFL to determine that a violation of the rules took place doesn't mean that there wasn't in fact a violation.

The burden of proof should always fall on the accuser. If you don't have enough evidence to prove your allegation than maybe you think twice before unfairly accusing someone just so you can see where the chips fall.

Really that's all this is for the Titans. They are hoping the NFL will find some evidence that they don't have and they'll luck into a draft pick. If the NFL doesn't find anything, than it's no skin off their nose.

Meanwhile, the media gets to hypothesize about the hows, and whys with limitless conjecture until the Redskins are finally, and unceremonously cleared of any wrong-doing.

Endless weeks of stories about what the Redskins "might have" done culminating in a two paragraph article that lasts half a day about how there was no evidence of any tampering.

Of course the burden of proof should fall on the accuser. But you can't punish someone for not meeting that burden, it makes no sense. Otherwise you would never have teams coming forward and that would defeat the purpose of the role.

With something like tampering it's always going to be difficult to prove and will most like always rely on circumstantial evidence. The Bears didn't have much evidence to support their claim that the 49ers tampered with Lance Briggs yet the NFL found that San Fran had tampered and docked them a pick and made them switch third rounders with the Bears. That was a rather thin case and if there was a threat of being punished if they couldn't prove their case I doubt that the Bears would have pursued that claim against the Niners.