Haynesworth trade possibly in the works

[The Goat]

Shanny and Bruce seem to already be losing control of the situation. If we can believe earlier reports Albert went into the season (off-season) committing himself to be at the top of his game. I would argue two points: 1) AH at the top of his game is the most dominant defensive player in football 2) that fact should be enough reason to build the effing defense around him i.e. keep the 4-3 and improve on what we've got.

Instead Shanny/Haslett/Allen have decided to force a scheme for which we don't even have the personnel. And because they effed up the trade w/ the Eagles it seems inevitable we'll lose our best player on the roster.

What is really frustrating about this is the simple fact we're not likely to stick w/ whatever Shanny and Haslett think they're doing anyway. Haslett is a mediocre to sub-par coach. His units have never impressed. And Shanny has a penchant for kicking DCs to the curb even when they perform well (some of his DCs in Denver produced top 10 defenses but still got axed). That's pure ego IMO. So Haslett is likely gone in a year and we start all over again defensively.

[skinsguy]

We don't need players here who do not wish to be here. So I say don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya there Haynesworth!

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

We don't need players here who do not wish to be here. So I say don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya there Haynesworth!

They went out of their way to make sure he doesn't want to be here.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Shanny and Bruce seem to already be losing control of the situation. If we can believe earlier reports Albert went into the season (off-season) committing himself to be at the top of his game. I would argue two points: 1) AH at the top of his game is the most dominant defensive player in football 2) that fact should be enough reason to build the effing defense around him i.e. keep the 4-3 and improve on what we've got.

Instead Shanny/Haslett/Allen have decided to force a scheme for which we don't even have the personnel. And because they effed up the trade w/ the Eagles it seems inevitable we'll lose our best player on the roster.

What is really frustrating about this is the simple fact we're not likely to stick w/ whatever Shanny and Haslett think they're doing anyway. Haslett is a mediocre to sub-par coach. His units have never impressed. And Shanny has a penchant for kicking DCs to the curb even when they perform well (some of his DCs in Denver produced top 10 defenses but still got axed). That's pure ego IMO. So Haslett is likely gone in a year and we start all over again defensively.

Do you think it premature to throw the new regime under the bus? OR did you want to wait until the season started to condemn them?

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Do you think it premature to throw the new regime under the bus? OR did you want to wait until the season started to condemn them?

I think the season is "built" on the off-season. Honestly Shanny and the FO have not impressed me at all, I just don't see them building for the long-term winner. Expect the defense especially to take a step backward this year.

But in a sense you're right...I'm biased against Shanahan and admitted as much long before he got here. I think he's our coach for two reasons: Snyder felt he HAD to get a big name coach again to regain some respect after destroying the franchise for a decade, and secondly Mike is the only big name coach who would come here because money has always been a primary motivator.

[Frost]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Shanny and Bruce seem to already be losing control of the situation. If we can believe earlier reports Albert went into the season (off-season) committing himself to be at the top of his game. I would argue two points: 1) AH at the top of his game is the most dominant defensive player in football 2) that fact should be enough reason to build the effing defense around him i.e. keep the 4-3 and improve on what we've got.

Instead Shanny/Haslett/Allen have decided to force a scheme for which we don't even have the personnel. And because they effed up the trade w/ the Eagles it seems inevitable we'll lose our best player on the roster.

What is really frustrating about this is the simple fact we're not likely to stick w/ whatever Shanny and Haslett think they're doing anyway. Haslett is a mediocre to sub-par coach. His units have never impressed. And Shanny has a penchant for kicking DCs to the curb even when they perform well (some of his DCs in Denver produced top 10 defenses but still got axed). That's pure ego IMO. So Haslett is likely gone in a year and we start all over again defensively.

Couldn't have said it better. That's exactly why this whole situation f**king sucks and Shanny is getting annoying and the season hasn't even started. WHY is he changing the scheme on a top 10 D. His main reason for what was published is that he wants turnovers. You want turnovers? How about you should have gotten rid of Carlos and added a CB with better hands, add a Real free safety and move Landry to Strong safety where he belongs, then you at least give the D a season to see how they do which I bet they would get a lot more turnovers and interceptions. If that does not work then you do the whole switch. But at least you would have given the D an opportunity. But no instead he hires Haslett (crappy D coach) changes the scheme, huffs and puffs that AH won't attend "voluntary camp" and most likely will end up trading Albert for a crappy pick.

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Shanny and Bruce seem to already be losing control of the situation. If we can believe earlier reports Albert went into the season (off-season) committing himself to be at the top of his game. I would argue two points: 1) AH at the top of his game is the most dominant defensive player in football 2) that fact should be enough reason to build the effing defense around him i.e. keep the 4-3 and improve on what we've got.

Instead Shanny/Haslett/Allen have decided to force a scheme for which we don't even have the personnel. And because they effed up the trade w/ the Eagles it seems inevitable we'll lose our best player on the roster.

What is really frustrating about this is the simple fact we're not likely to stick w/ whatever Shanny and Haslett think they're doing anyway. Haslett is a mediocre to sub-par coach. His units have never impressed. And Shanny has a penchant for kicking DCs to the curb even when they perform well (some of his DCs in Denver produced top 10 defenses but still got axed). That's pure ego IMO. So Haslett is likely gone in a year and we start all over again defensively.

If we trade Haynesworth for peanuts after giving him $30M, then revert back to the 4-3 after a year of spotty results in the 3-4, then Shanahan should have lots of explaining to do.

Haynesworth is what he is - a dominant player when given the freedom to play the way he wants to, but a pain in the ass if you ask him to do anything outside his comfort zone.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

If we trade Haynesworth for peanuts after giving him $30M, then revert back to the 4-3 after a year of spotty results in the 3-4, then Shanahan should have lots of explaining to do.

Haynesworth is what he is - a dominant player when given the freedom to play the way he wants to, but a pain in the ass if you ask him to do anything outside his comfort zone.

I agree.
I would rather have a roster full of talented players that make the playoffs more times than not, make an occasional SB and that do not attend any of the off season voluntary programs than a bunch boyscout type players that get pushed around.
Dave Butz and John Riggins did their own thing, never attended any of the off season programs and they were referred to back them as players that played to the beat of a diffrent drum. Nobody screamed about it because it was ok back then.
Now we got a bunch of whiney coaches and fans that bitch about people that are different.
I am most amazed at some of the misquoted stuff that Haynesworth supposedly said.

[warpaint]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

I agree.
I would rather have a roster full of talented players that make the playoffs more times than not, make an occasional SB and that do not attend any of the off season voluntary programs than a bunch boyscout type players that get pushed around.
Dave Butz and John Riggins did their own thing, never attended any of the off season programs and they were referred to back them as players that played to the beat of a diffrent drum. Nobody screamed about it because it was ok back then.
Now we got a bunch of whiney coaches and fans that bitch about people that are different.
I am most amazed at some of the misquoted stuff that Haynesworth supposedly said.

I agree with your comments. I really would like someone to post all the stuff AH has said. Because the only thing being said about AH being uncooperative is by everyone but AH. The last qoute AH said is that he was willing to work with Haslett on his scheme.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

If we trade Haynesworth for peanuts after giving him $30M, then revert back to the 4-3 after a year of spotty results in the 3-4, then Shanahan should have lots of explaining to do.

Haynesworth is what he is - a dominant player when given the freedom to play the way he wants to, but a pain in the ass if you ask him to do anything outside his comfort zone.

Soup, this doesn't make sense. Shanny should explain what and to whom? He was bought here to change the culture and assemble a winning organization. If Haynesworth ain't down with that, then he's the one that should be explaining, not the head coach.

As far as Haynesworth being dominant, well, I guess this is where I part ways with most of those who post here. Haynesworth wasn't on the field enough, in my opinion, to be a truly dominant player. I would say he was definitely solid most of the last year and showed flashes here and there, but dominance and consistency go hand in hand in my book.

Shanahan isn't the problem, but it's starting to look like he inherited one.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

If we trade Haynesworth for peanuts after giving him $30M, then revert back to the 4-3 after a year of spotty results in the 3-4, then Shanahan should have lots of explaining to do.

Haynesworth is what he is - a dominant player when given the freedom to play the way he wants to, but a pain in the ass if you ask him to do anything outside his comfort zone.

Haynesworth likely would be released anyway in 3 more years so its not like we ever viewed him as an integral part of the long-term success of the team. all that being said, i also question the move to the 3-4 to begin with and think this team would be much better off sticking with the 4-3, playing orakpo at DE, and keeping haynesworth. moving to the 3-4 in 2010 strikes me as a stupid move all around, given all the other needs we have on the team. but if we're going to move to a 3-4, i'd rather go ahead and move haynesworth too. i certainly think we could get multiple, less talented players and/or picks out of it.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Haynesworth likely would be released anyway in 3 more years so its not like we ever viewed him as an integral part of the long-term success of the team. all that being said, i also question the move to the 3-4 to begin with and think this team would be much better off sticking with the 4-3, playing orakpo at DE, and keeping haynesworth. moving to the 3-4 in 2010 strikes me as a stupid move all around, given all the other needs we have on the team. but if we're going to move to a 3-4, i'd rather go ahead and move haynesworth too. i certainly think we could get multiple, less talented players and/or picks out of it.

I agree.
This forced move to a 3-4 when our defensive roster is built for a 4-3. We do not have nearly enough quality LB's to play it for a whole season.
I am also not sold on this D-Coordinator. Has he ever had great success anywhere? I am asking because I do not know.