The Jay Cutler argument for sticking with Mike Shanahan

[Oldfan]

The funny thing is, I think that I've read that Oldfan really wants us to become a dynasty like the Patriots. Well, who was the team that went after Haynesworth and traded with us?

Sure, the cost was low, but still.....

"But still?" There's no but still to it. It's an entirely different decision.

[Burgold]

"But still?" There's no but still to it. It's an entirely different decision.

Not entirely. There has to be some acknowledgement of mistakes when you choose to take in a lazy, malcontent, who's proven to be a bad citizen on and off the football field. Haynesworth was not only an expensive albatross to the 'skins he was a bad actor to the team and its community. How many drunk driving, women hitting, senior citizen attacking players do you want on your team who also have a history of loafing on the field?

When you choose to bring that guy into your clubhouse you are making a mistake regardless of cost.

[Oldfan]

Not entirely. There has to be some acknowledgement of mistakes when you choose to take in a lazy, malcontent, who's proven to be a bad citizen on and off the football field. Haynesworth was not only an expensive albatross to the 'skins he was a bad actor to the team and its community. How many drunk driving, women hitting, senior citizen attacking players do you want on your team who also have a history of loafing on the field?

When you choose to bring that guy into your clubhouse you are making a mistake regardless of cost.

Randy Moss?

[Burgold]

Randy Moss?

Moss was a bum too and he had some off the field incidents including a hit and run and others. I think the success of Moss is more the exception than the rule. Otherwise, the Raiders would be perennial Superbowl champs.

[Oldfan]

Moss was a bum too and he had some off the field incidents including a hit and run and others. I think the success of Moss is more the exception than the rule. Otherwise, the Raiders would be perennial Superbowl champs.

When the cost is low, and the potential gain very high, it can be a good decision to make the deal even if the odds are against it working out.

I just remembered that the Giants wanted Haynesworth badly too. They eventually settled for Canty when the price got too high on Al.

[NLC1054]

That should not have made a difference. Haynesworth's willingness to play the 3-4 is not relevant.

As I said before, Shanahan knew, or should have known, that Haynesworth did not fit the scheme. Whatever had to be done to make his contract acceptable to trade partners could have been done before the absurd confrontation in training camp which reduced his trade value.

Whatever they ended up eating after the fiasco could have been eaten before.

You either don't understand, or you're being obtuse.

Everything I said happened, DID happen before training camp. Haynesworth signed his restructured deal before the draft, in April if I recall correctly. Haynesworth got his $21 million upfront, before training camp. All the problems happened before Haynesworth ever had to take his first conditioning test.

You keep saying "they should've fixed everything before training camp before his trade value took a hit". I'm saying that they did fix it before then.

After doing some digging, here's what I was able to find out about it Albert's "trade value".

The offer on the table from the Titans was a fourth round pick---not a third---and tight end Bo Scaife. Shanny didn't want Scaife (he had Cooley and Davis after all), he wanted Kenny Britt. Deal fell through.

Only other deal on the table was Denver on draft day. They were close to a deal, but then McDaniels decided to move up in the first round and draft some random dude named Tim Tebow.

[Jumbo]

The argument in the OP ran out of steam before we got our fill of arguing out of our system. I still think trading Champ for Portis was one of the worst trades in Skins history. What do you think?

I think the internet is a boon to the ADHD,OCD, Narcissistic PD, Paranoid Schizophrenic, and Bipolar populations.

And just to show I can play "let me say the same old thing a million other people have already said a million times before" game --- "Champ was leaving town no matter what, and in no small part due to personal issues, so we did well to get an excellent (one of the very top at the time) running back out of the deal, and who became our best offensive weapon for many years."

Other than that angle, it was a disappointing trade.

But who cares---I wanna review the "genius" Gregg Williams and how he ruined Awesome Adam Archuleta.

[DogofWar1]

One thing is people keep mentioning that Haynesworth wouldn't fit the scheme, and Shanahan should have known, but at the early stage in the process (before training camp 2010) Shanahan had had no time to evaluate Haynesworth as a NT. I mean, he literally walks in the door and almost first thing has to decide whether to trade this guy or convert him to NT. So he talks to his DC, his DC says he can make it work, he talks to the player, the player says he'll try it, so he pays the guy in order to get our financial house in order. I suppose if Shanahan had a bunch of time to evaluate Haynesworth on the field he could have known the guy wouldn't fit NT, but he had no such time, and had to go by his DC's evaluation and they player's word. Clearly the DC was wrong and the player's word was crap, so it fell through.

Anyways, back to the question of whether Shanahan can make us a #1 team, the answer is yes (and also no, but I'll get to why it's no in the last paragraph), because we have a QB like Rodgers who can put up tons of points and will get us into the playoffs every year provided we have anything around him. Shanahan is good at building offenses, and he's got the best young playmaker since probably Rodgers himself, so things are looking up there.

At the same time, the defensive woes are two parts injury, one part coaching/personnel. Next year we get Orakpo back, Carriker back, Jenkins is a year older and one more removed from his injury, Kerrigan and Riley are cemented. The secondary is iffy, but if Meriweather can return, and we can snag a FS in FA, we could see those positions improve drastically. In addition, if someone like Vaccaro is there in the 2nd, that would further help the position.

And as crazy as he makes us, I'd really like to see us rework Hall's contract and keep him here. Guy can intercept the ball, can tackle well, and can get a sack in a pinch. His resume reads like a FS, and maybe we should slide him over, but regardless he's been good these last two weeks. That could change, but I he's definitely improved his stock in my eyes. Still wayyyy too expensive, but worth keeping.

The point of all this is that I believe there's a clear path forward for Shanahan to get this team into a consistent playoff contender. Get a RT, get safeties in order, and pursue some young starters at CB. Get those pieces, and get our guys back, and we will be a force to be reckoned with. Once we're there, we can begin to make moves to solidify what we already have, ala. New England's draft strategy of trading back and compiling tons of 2nd round picks, instead of pursuing missing pieces.

As for #1 every year, there's no such thing. There are teams that are top 5 for long stretches, NE, Pitt, and now GB, are always competing for the SB, and that's about as good as it gets. I think we have the capability to reach that level sometime within the next 3-5 years, and maintain that level for the remainder of Griffin's career. There's also a lot of teams that are a quick step down from those guys, teams like Balt., Atl., and Chi., who are in the playoffs most years but fall short of the big game. I think we'll be among that group by 2014, and reaching the premiere top 5 group by 2017.

[Mahons21]

1.) Shannahan should be able discern that a free-lancing DT, wasn't likely to succeed as a 2-gapping NT.

2.) What evidence of there of this falling on Haslett? Why do people keep referencing this mystery conversation with Mike and Haslett, that very well may have never occurred.

It's not logical to assume, that Jim wasn't allowed to choose his assistants, not allowed to choose his scheme, but then on one of the largest decisions that's going to shape the Redskins future he apparently had a huge influence.

Far more likely scenario, Mike told Jim Al was going to stay, and to find a way to make it work, as he'd done with the scheme and as he had done with his assistants.

[NLC1054]

Far more likely scenario, Mike told Jim Al was going to stay, and to find a way to make it work, as he'd done with the scheme and as he had done with his assistants.

As much as Mike's had a hand in the coaching room and the scheme, Haslett has had a big hand in picking the personnel in his defense.

[DogofWar1]

1.) Shannahan should be able discern that a free-lancing DT, wasn't likely to succeed as a 2-gapping NT.

2.) What evidence of there of this falling on Haslett? Why do people keep referencing this mystery conversation with Mike and Haslett, that very well may have never occurred.

It's not logical to assume, that Jim wasn't allowed to choose his assistants, not allowed to choose his scheme, but then on one of the largest decisions that's going to shape the Redskins future he apparently had a huge influence.

Far more likely scenario, Mike told Jim Al was going to stay, and to find a way to make it work, as he'd done with the scheme and as he had done with his assistants.

I mean, Shanahan is an offensive guy. I suppose we can fault him a bit, but I would think he would normally defer on that kind of stuff, especially having just walked in the door and being busy evaluating 52+ other players.

As for Haslett saying he wanted to give Al a chance in the scheme, there was an article earlier in the thread:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/red...h-can-you.html

Haslett, the coach who initially convinced Haynesworth that a switch to a 3-4 base defense could work for him

While the article goes over things after Haynesworth's fall from grace, Haslett's quotes make it sound like he wanted to give him a shot during the season.

There's also this one:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/red...-board-as.html

But Haslett is developing a good working relationship with Haynesworth, whom he believes could be among the keys to the team making a successful transition from the 4-3 to their new base 3-4. Haslett was "happy as hell" about Haynesworth passing the test, one source said.
Now, Haslett can move forward with his plan to primarily have Haynesworth line up as the Redskins' starting right end.

And another one, not having anything to do with Haslett, but a nice laugh-worthy quote by Haynesworth:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/red...-the-swit.html

And although Haynesworth isn't thrilled with the idea of playing nose tackle, he made it clear he has not requested a trade.
"Whatever they ask me to do, that's what I'm gonna do," Haynesworth said. "I'm not gonna be a distraction or anything. I'm just gonna do what they ask me to do."

It looks like there was hope that Haynesworth would make the transition, and it sounds like while he wasn't thrilled with it, Haynesworth was on board in the early part of the 2010 offseason, and we didn't really have another good option for NT at the moment. The situation soured quickly, obviously, but prior to him getting money it probably seemed like he might work out.

[Mahons21]

Media quotes and NLC's unsubstantiated claim do little to prove an argument.

You don't know the impact Haslett had nor do I. I say it's illogical to assume he did, because he had little impact elsewhere. You don't think it's odd that the contract that would shape the Redskins future was in Haslett's hands, but he couldn't pick his d-line coach? That makes logical sense in your head because you read a quote where Haslett was trying to make things work with his disgruntled linemen? In my opinion, you're believing what you want to believe and not applying logic.

And as I've said multiple times, I'm willing to accept that none of us know, I'm not that one making the claim that this should fall on Haslett. I find it somewhat ridiculous how much credence this argument is being paid, since there's nothing to substantiate it.

[DogofWar1]

If you read what I wrote, I said "It looks like there was hope that Haynesworth would make the transition, and it sounds like while he wasn't thrilled with it, Haynesworth was on board in the early part of the 2010 offseason," and media reports and even some player quotes seem to support that. That doesn't necessarily make it the way it went down, but there is some evidence to make it appear as though the situation does not purely rest on Shanahan's shoulders.

I think some in this thread have staked out of the position that Shanahan should have traded Haynesworth immediately, and that failure to do that rests completely on him, and some are using that example as an argument against Shanahan being capable of making this team a consistent contender. I'm trying to figure out who thought what when, based on the information that was available in early 2010. And it seems like Shanahan, Haslett, and Haynesworth all felt things would work out at that time. That is the logical conclusion based on reports and quotes from that time. Unless there's something out there saying that Haslett wanted Haynesworth gone but Shanahan ordered him to keep him, or that Haynesworth was requesting a trade, or the like, then the reports from early 2010 largely seem to agree that it was not a match made in heaven, but it was viewed as a workable situation by the parties involved.

The person who deserves the majority of the blame in this situation is not Shanahan or Haslett, but Haynesworth. He was our best NT option going into the season, and made statements to the media saying he was ok with trying to make the switch. Clearly that was not the case, or he changed his mind somewhere along the way, or just decided to fulfill his destiny as a fat blob of ice cream instead of a football player.

[Mahons21]

If you read what I wrote, I said "It looks like there was hope that Haynesworth would make the transition, and it sounds like while he wasn't thrilled with it, Haynesworth was on board in the early part of the 2010 offseason," and media reports and even some player quotes seem to support that. That doesn't necessarily make it the way it went down, but there is some evidence to make it appear as though the situation does not purely rest on Shanahan's shoulders.

I never once asserted it did. All I've said is that if MS could have traded Haynesworth he should have. Do you disagree?

I think some in this thread have staked out of the position that Shanahan should have traded Haynesworth immediately, and that failure to do that rests completely on him, and some are using that example as an argument against Shanahan being capable of making this team a consistent contender. I'm trying to figure out who thought what when, based on the information that was available in early 2010. And it seems like Shanahan, Haslett, and Haynesworth all felt things would work out at that time. That is the logical conclusion based on reports and quotes from that time. Unless there's something out there saying that Haslett wanted Haynesworth gone but Shanahan ordered him to keep him, or that Haynesworth was requesting a trade, or the like, then the reports from early 2010 largely seem to agree that it was not a match made in heaven, but it was viewed as a workable situation by the parties involved.

Again I'm not trying to put this all on Shannahan, I don't even know if there was a market with his contract.

The person who deserves the majority of the blame in this situation is not Shanahan or Haslett, but Haynesworth. He was our best NT option going into the season, and made statements to the media saying he was ok with trying to make the switch. Clearly that was not the case, or he changed his mind somewhere along the way, or just decided to fulfill his destiny as a fat blob of ice cream instead of a football player.

If a trade was available Mike deserves some blame because he knew a.) Al didn't fi the system b.) prior to training camp IIRC Al had already expressed he didn't want to play in the system, c.) Al's prior behavior issues.

This is all IF a trade was available. Do you disagree?

[Redskins Life]

If a trade was available Mike deserves some blame because he knew a.) Al didn't fi the system b.) prior to training camp IIRC Al had already expressed he didn't want to play in the system, c.) Al's prior behavior issues.

How does anyone know if Haynesworth fit the system or not? He has never played NT in his career, but definitely had the build and skill set to play it. He had said that he was going to play whatever was asked of him, and year one was mostly an evaluation season as it was. I'm sorry, but Shanahan cannot be held responsible for Haynesworth's dishonesty. Mike did not bring him here, but tried to work with him. Haynesworth signed a restructured deal, got paid, and then reneged on the contract. I have a hard time saying shame on Shanahan because he gave a player a chance, the benefit of the doubt, and expected that player to be a professional. The only one to blame in that situation is the only person who wasn't forthright and honest in this situation, the only person who refused to do his job.