Haynesworth is Behaving Selfishly

[BigHairedAristocrat]

I like how Allen says "a lot" of the reports out there about trading Haynesworth aren't true. He didnt deny that some of them were.

I don't think any reasonable person doubts that if a team offered the right compensation for AH, he'd be gone and Allen and Shanahan would be pretty happy about it. But at this point, every team in the NFL has had a chance to offer the right compensation and, obviously, they were either unwilling or unable to meet our demands. The only way he gets moved in 2010 is if a stud DT on a "contending" team suffers a season-ending injury and the team panics. Baring that, Haynesworth should be here through 2010.

From Haynesworth's side, I am not backing down from my opinion that, having just received a 20MM check, he should be willing to do whatever the team asks him to do. We know that, at minimum, he has rebuffed Shanahan's, Hasletts, Allens, Phillip Danie'ls, and Donovan F. McNabb's requests/pleadings that he show up like everyone else. All will be forgiven if Haynesworth shows up for mandatory activities, gives 100% at whatever role his coaches assign him, and dominates during the regular season. But right now, those are very high expectations and Haynesworth's absence makes him look like a primadonna who care's more about himself than the team. Again, nothing we didn't know before signing him. Right now, we're getting what we paid for.

It is a legitimate story, and the media is doing their job by continuing to report on it. I don't think either JLC, the WaPo, PFT, or any other major media outlet is "making stuff up" by reporting what their sources are telling him. This won't go away until Haynesworth is traded or he starts participating in team activities.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I don't think any reasonable person doubts that if a team offered the right compensation for AH, he'd be gone and Allen and Shanahan would be pretty happy about it. But at this point, every team in the NFL has had a chance to offer the right compensation and, obviously, they were either unwilling or unable to meet our demands. The only way he gets moved in 2010 is if a stud DT on a "contending" team suffers a season-ending injury and the team panics. Baring that, Haynesworth should be here through 2010.

I'm just curious to know what are your thoughts about the change to the 3-4 (without thinking about AH). Part of me wants to somewhat agree with folks that are saying what you are saying.

But my logical side is telling me that it is a bad idea to switch to the 3-4. That making this switch is creating needs on defense that we didn't have before and that it seems that this new coaching staff is willing to gamble in making several players on defense play a new position. With this in mind, it is a bit hard to ignore AH saying that he wants to play a position that will make him more effective.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I'm just curious to know what are your thoughts about the change to the 3-4 (without thinking about AH). Part of me wants to somewhat agree with folks that are saying what you are saying.

But my logical side is telling me that it is a bad idea to switch to the 3-4. That making this switch is creating needs on defense that we didn't have before and that it seems that this new coaching staff is willing to gamble in making several players on defense play a new position. With this in mind, it is a bit hard to ignore AH saying that he wants to play a position that will make him more effective.

I think switching to a 3-4 base defense in 2010 is completely retarded. We had a Top 10 defense in 2010 with a uber-conservative DC that had two of our top potential playmakers playing out of position (3 if you want to include misusing haynesworth). Additionally, the defense was also hurt because our innept offense couldnt score points and the HC made stupid calls that constantly put our defense in tough spots.

Shanahan's offense and play-calling alone would indirectly improve our defense. Move Landry to SS, Orakpo to full-time 4-3 DE, and let Hasletts more aggressive calling work its magic. In my mind, those changes alone would make our defense top 5. Instead, I don't see any way our defense is not in the bottom 10 of the league in 2010. we've simply got too many guys on the roster who don't really fit anywhere in the system and/or who are playing out of their natural position now. IMO Haynesworth is, by far, the best player on our defense, if not the entire team, and the coaches should be doing everything as possible to get the most out of him. Shanahan and Hasletts forcing the 3-4 on the team now is no different than Cerrato forcing the WCO on Jason Campbell. Its a square peg and a round hole. Eventually, you can make it ok, but the coaches are just making a problem when there doesnt need to be one. Great coaches are supposed to adapt their systems to their personnel. All teams run a little bit of everything to confuses offenses, and i'm not averse to the team going to a base 3-4 eventually. But doing it in 2010 is just further evidence that Shanahan is still a moron when it comes to defense.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I think switching to a 3-4 base defense in 2010 is completely retarded. We had a Top 10 defense in 2010 with a uber-conservative DC that had two of our top potential playmakers playing out of position (3 if you want to include misusing haynesworth). Additionally, the defense was also hurt because our innept offense couldnt score points and the HC made stupid calls that constantly put our defense in tough spots.

Shanahan's offense and play-calling alone would indirectly improve our defense. Move Landry to SS, Orakpo to full-time 4-3 DE, and let Hasletts more aggressive calling work its magic. In my mind, those changes alone would make our defense top 5. Instead, I don't see any way our defense is not in the bottom 10 of the league in 2010. we've simply got too many guys on the roster who don't really fit anywhere in the system and/or who are playing out of their natural position now. IMO Haynesworth is, by far, the best player on our defense, if not the entire team, and the coaches should be doing everything as possible to get the most out of him. Shanahan and Hasletts forcing the 3-4 on the team now is no different than Cerrato forcing the WCO on Jason Campbell. Its a square peg and a round hole. Eventually, you can make it ok, but the coaches are just making a problem when there doesnt need to be one. Great coaches are supposed to adapt their systems to their personnel. All teams run a little bit of everything to confuses offenses, and i'm not averse to the team going to a base 3-4 eventually. But doing it in 2010 is just further evidence that Shanahan is still a moron when it comes to defense.

THIS!

...Shanahan, Haslett and Allen should be grilled come the regular season when the defense takes a big step backward. I mean we bring in these super smart football guys to replace a coke-head toady working w/ Snyder and the first thing they do, literally, is take the strongest facet of the team and blow it UP. That's just stupid. Fans and media should put them through the ringer when the defense is underwhelming.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by The Goat

THIS!

...Shanahan, Haslett and Allen should be grilled come the regular season when the defense takes a big step backward. I mean we bring in these super smart football guys to replace a coke-head toady working w/ Snyder and the first thing they do, literally, is take the strongest facet of the team and blow it UP. That's just stupid. Fans and media should put them through the ringer when the defense is underwhelming.

I understand the skepticism however i'm sure that their plan extends past just this year and if we're able to already evaluate the future performances of our players for this year we'd probably have jobs at the park or with any other organization for that matter

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I like how Allen says "a lot" of the reports out there about trading Haynesworth aren't true. He didnt deny that some of them were.

You expect him to say ALL of the reports? Knowing that he couldn't have possibly read them all?

Jesus man, take the tin foil hat off.