Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruhskins
And it is hard to understand why you think this is a big deal. But then again, if he is "forcing" the team to stick to the 4-3, actually I'd be all for that because I believe our team has no business being in the 3-4.
Everything that has come directly from Haynesworth himself says that he is not thrilled with the 3-4, but he'll play it. He also wishes they'd use him as a 3-4 DE and not a NT, which I agree. Is he trying to push for a trade? Probably, but it'd be smart for the team to keep him because given the perception of a problem (it is my believe) the team won't get a fair compensation.
Personally, I'd like to see this team use their players better. If this were any other player, we'd be having a discussion about this whole change to the 3-4, whether we should do it, and why do we keep having coaches that don't use their players to the best of their capacity. But since it's Haynesworth, the bitter girlfriends just keep hounding on just him being absent.
|
only a complete fool will take anything haynesworth, his agent, or the redskins front office says about the situation at face value Remember, they all said Snyder was meeting with Speck to talk about Malcom Kelly.
If you consider the possibility that Haynesworth really DOES want to be traded, and the team is still open to the possibility, then everyone's behavior makes compete sense. In that scenario, everyone would be acting exactly as they are. Actions speak louder than words. In light of what we know, the scenario that makes the most sense is that Haynesworth wants out.