DrDawkinstein Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 IMO, it's not that he isn't big enough, it's more about the nature of the NT position. The NT position is a two gap position, so Albert would be responsible for watching two spots on the line, all while having two 300+ lb. offensive linemen banging on him. It's a tough position to play, which is why good NT's are so hard to find. Sounds like Albert doesn't think that big check he took earlier this year is enough. so that first $100million only buys watching ONE spot on the line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nateodoms'bff Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Haynesworth needs to stay in a 4-3. Im surprised that they would put him at the NT, and not try him at DE. He may be a little big, but his strength and penetration ability would be huge against the run. And DE in a 3-4 seems a little more like what he would be used to.... I also said penetration ability... get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Haynesworth makes me so angry that I just feel the need to stomp on somebody's face with cleats on. Why would you hurt someone else because you're pissed at Haynesworth? Why not step on him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Haynesworth needs to stay in a 4-3. Im surprised that they would put him at the NT, and not try him at DE. He may be a little big, but his strength and penetration ability would be huge against the run. And DE in a 3-4 seems a little more like what he would be used to.... I dont think it matters which position they make him, it sounds like he doesnt want to be anywhere in a 3-4, or anywhere other than at DT. i dont know though. I also said penetration ability... get it. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Rob Johnson Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Again he is doing nothing wrong. He never would have went to Washington if they had been straight with him on their desire to play the 3-4. he is a 4-3 DT, not a 3-4 NT. He penetrates and disrupts the backfield, not sit and take up space. I would agree to give back a prorated portion of the signing bonus in lieu of a trade. I'm not sure how that could have been predicted considering it is a completely different coaching staff? Also, they gave him the ability to seek a trade before the April 1st bonus was to be paid out. He opted to accept the $20 million bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 This is embarrassing. Both for the Redskins, and for Fat Albert (even though he's too ego-driven to understand). I applaud London Fletcher coming out and blasting Fat Albert today. London is a guy I wish we still had, and to hear him come out and call Haynesworth for what he is is priceless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nateodoms'bff Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 I dont think it matters which position they make him, it sounds like he doesnt want to be anywhere in a 3-4, or anywhere other than at DT. i dont know though. Yeah its obvious that he just wants the money and the ability to disappear on gameday. Those two "huge" seasons he had were both contract years. That was the big knock on him was his lack of desire in non contract seasons. I love that the 'skins are so screwed up too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 just saw Shanahan's full comments on ESPN. What was missing from the article, I added in bold: "Obviously, he took the check," Shanahan said, "so I was surprised he wasn't here today. If you take that check, we expect you to be the best Defensive End, best Nose Tackle, the best FREE SAFETY if we decide to play you at Free Safety... that you can be.... Don't take our check and then say that, hey, you don't want to be part of our organization." and i agree. unless something is specifically stated in his contract, and it doesn't seem like there is, then for $100million (or even the $21mil roster check he took), he should show up and do whatever they want him to do. he had until 4/1 to find a new team. he didnt. he took the redskins check instead. he is theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 in fairness, his beef is NOT about money. it's about playing a position he is not suited for, or doesnt want to play. Again he is doing nothing wrong. He never would have went to Washington if they had been straight with him on their desire to play the 3-4. he is a 4-3 DT, not a 3-4 NT. He penetrates and disrupts the backfield, not sit and take up space. Sorry guys, but that's a load of crap. He is suited to play NT just fine. He just doesn't want to play NT because he won't have as many stats. He's a selfish POS and I'd feel sorry for the team that bought into his hype --- if it wasn't the Redskins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Just like Peyton Manning. There was no question that Peyton was going to be the highest paid QB. There wasn't a lot of acrimony in that situation. He didn't demand to be the highest paid, he played like he was the highest paid. The situations are incredibly different. If you disagree then you're likely reaching to try to make a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Sorry guys, but that's a load of crap. He is suited to play NT just fine. He just doesn't want to play NT because he won't have as many stats. He's a selfish POS and I'd feel sorry for the team that bought into his hype --- if it wasn't the Redskins. You nailed it. Haynesworth, if his heart was in it, could end up being a GREAT NT. He has all the physical tools you'd want in an NT and more. I don't buy the crap about only being suited to a 4-3, either. He's a great tackle. Period. He'd give centers and guards nightmares with his strength and quickness, freeing up LBs to make tackles. Gee, I think I just described the function of a 3-4 NT. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Sorry guys, but that's a load of crap. He is suited to play NT just fine. He just doesn't want to play NT because he won't have as many stats. He's a selfish POS and I'd feel sorry for the team that bought into his hype --- if it wasn't the Redskins. i agree completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Again he is doing nothing wrong. He never would have went to Washington if they had been straight with him on their desire to play the 3-4. he is a 4-3 DT, not a 3-4 NT. He penetrates and disrupts the backfield, not sit and take up space. I would agree to give back a prorated portion of the signing bonus in lieu of a trade. The Redskins did not know that they were going to a 3-4 defense in 2010 when they signed him in 2010....A new regime came in and felt that their best shot at winning is a 3-4 defense. The team can either coax a player to convert to the new system or ship them out. Unfortunately, due to the contract shape and size, the second alternative is not feasible. The Redskins understand that their hands are tied, but that is not their fault. It is one of those strange things that happen in life...Haynesworth has to suck up the problem and play...It is not like he is being asked to move to Safety... The problem (as explained in NFL Network a while ago) is as follows: Hayneswoth is a attacking DT who likes to create havoc in the backfield as a free lancer. He gets sacks and has parlayed that into a huge contract. Now playing the NT means you stick to your position and the # of sacks go down, which means his highlight reels go down....Also, the NT takes a physical toll since you are now blocked by the Center and the Guard.... My point is that you took so much money, you have to be flexible enough to move around for the team. That is where you show whether you are a team player or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 That is why Carolina was willing to let Peppers walk. I am really praying that the next CBA that comes out reduces the salary cap and owners quit paying huge bonuses to these clowns. I disagree...This is a violent sport and without these players this league is nothing. They deserve all the money.....Now once they get that money, they need to play as a TEAM..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincec Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Sorry guys, but that's a load of crap. He is suited to play NT just fine. He just doesn't want to play NT because he won't have as many stats. He's a selfish POS and I'd feel sorry for the team that bought into his hype --- if it wasn't the Redskins. +1 If he put his mind to it, he could be the best NT in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilsner Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 This is embarrassing. Both for the Redskins, and for Fat Albert (even though he's too ego-driven to understand). I applaud London Fletcher coming out and blasting Fat Albert today. London is a guy I wish we still had, and to hear him come out and call Haynesworth for what he is is priceless. I completely agree. I'm glad London told it how it is. Screw the selfish bastards. Only team players need apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarolinaBill Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Again he is doing nothing wrong. He never would have went to Washington if they had been straight with him on their desire to play the 3-4. he is a 4-3 DT, not a 3-4 NT. He penetrates and disrupts the backfield, not sit and take up space. I would agree to give back a prorated portion of the signing bonus in lieu of a trade. They also offered to cut him before the bonus was paid so he could go find a 4-3 team as a FA, but he said no, I want the $$$, and now he's crying. sorry darth, but there is something very wrong about that. they offered him the perfect solution. instead he took the $$$. Grow up Albert and play out the contract you agreed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turftoe Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Someone should step on HIS face. I'll do it! May the lord have mercy on my soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FitzShowUsYourTitz Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Again he is doing nothing wrong. He never would have went to Washington if they had been straight with him on their desire to play the 3-4. he is a 4-3 DT, not a 3-4 NT. He penetrates and disrupts the backfield, not sit and take up space. I would agree to give back a prorated portion of the signing bonus in lieu of a trade. Darth, Nice comment. Most people don't have a friggin clue. All they can come up with is statements like....."If they paid me XXX amount of dollars to play a kids game, I would shut up and take it like a man. Not many can look outside of their own box. Good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I completely agree. I'm glad London told it how it is. Screw the selfish bastards. Only team players need apply. i remember the days of people complaining about London Fletcher and the old 'he makes tackles ten yards downfield'. Hindsight is 20-20, but that guy has got to be one of the top 10 players to have ever played the game considering enthusiasm, durability, athleticism, heart, span of career, and leadership by example. good for him. haynesworth is who he is, and if not this, something else. he is not london fletcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts