The Jay Cutler argument for sticking with Mike Shanahan

[DogofWar1]

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

Somewhat. Haynesworth was, physically and talent wise, our best NT option for the 2010 season. It might have been a situation similar to what people talk about with D.Hall, that they want to trade him, but we don't have a suitable replacement. And it seems like MS and Haslett felt Haynesworth had the talent for it, like how in the late 2010 article Haslett discussed that he felt Haynesworth had the talent for the position, but not the will to play it. I also think the timetable simply worked against us in a bad way. We had to pay him and so the choice came down keeping him or trading him very early on, and it seems like everyone was, at least for a short while, on the same page and trying to make things work. Once he was paid, I think that was it, they were going to keep him, trade offers or no, and that's when Haynesworth really let his attitude go.

I think ultimately there was a timetable crunch and a lot of hopes about him working there, supported by Haynesworth temporarily behaving and making positive comments. Then he arrived in camp out of shape and acting like a jerk, and all that was gone, and by the time that happened we couldn't really trade him.

[terpskins10]

Am I the only one who thinks, if Haynesworth could have lost some weight to get down to about 315, he could have been a very good fit as a 5-tech defensive end?

He may not have fit the system as a NT because of discipline issues, but I don't think that means he wouldn't have fit the system if he had been willing to drop some weight and play end (obviously wasn't willing to).

[Best Team Ever]

He had the talent to play any position on the DL in any scheme. It was only a question if he was willing.

[Oldfan]

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

You have a lot of nerve -- making a comment like that and then altering your position.

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.

No, this is what you said:

As I said, his original contract, before he got it restructured, basically made him untradeable. I can't imagine anyone being willing to give up a third round pick for that kind of money.

If his contract was fixed before training camp, then why did you view him as untradeable before training camp?

When I said the the rumor of a third round pick was believable you scoffed. Now, you are saying that the Titans offered a fourth and Bo Sciafe. That offer supports my position that a third round pick was believable.

Haynesworth's unwillingness to play the 34 is not relevant since he wasn't a fit for the scheme and his character issues were not a fit for our team anyway.

[thesubmittedone]

Haynesworth's unwillingness to play the 34 is not relevant since he wasn't a fit for the scheme and his character issues were not a fit for our team anyway.

That is outrageous. Haynesworth was absolutely a fit. He would've been the perfect NT at his weight and he could've easily lost a little and become a dominant 3-4 DE. He even showed at times in 2010 this very thing. I believe the first game against the Eagles as well as against the Bears that year he dominated because he actually was willing.

Come on OF, can't believe you would say something so ridiculous.

---------- Post added November-25th-2012 at 04:14 PM ----------

He had the talent to play any position on the DL in any scheme. It was only a question if he was willing.

Absolutely indisputable, with clear evidence in the aforementioned games.

The problem is that, once this is acknowledged, the only fault one can find in Mike in the entire situation was actually believing Albert would get his head on straight and be willing to contribute. You can say Mike should've known better with a headcase like Al, but that's hardly an indictment especially considering Mike had spoken to him and given him the option of taking the money and doing what we ask or getting traded. He took the money and acted like he was going to be subservient, but he lied. Can't believe we are harping on this.

Mike did the right thing by not allowing this piece of crap to simply get away with it. He let him rot on the bench where he belonged and effectively ruined his career. We're all forgetting about how badly we wanted a culture change in 2010 when Mike came in. Haynesworth was the poster boy for the rest of the inmates running the asylum at the time.

I'm enjoying this thread, though. To me, the main focus of those finding fault in Mike's rebuild here have been the McNabb trade and the Haynesworth saga. That alone says Mike is doing a wonderful job. No one is perfect and if those are the biggest issues then good.

[Oldfan]

That is outrageous. Haynesworth was absolutely a fit. He would've been the perfect NT at his weight and he could've easily lost a little and become a dominant 3-4 DE. He even showed at times in 2010 this very thing. I believe the first game against the Eagles as well as against the Bears that year he dominated because he actually was willing.

What I saw was a player floundering at NT and doing only a little better at tackle

Albert Haynesworth on Redskins' 3-4 Defense: 'I'm Just Not That Good at It'

[NLC1054]

You have a lot of nerve -- making a comment like that and then altering your position.

For frak's sake, you really don't get it.

I did not alter my position, Oldfan. Let me explain it in plain English.

I said before, his original contract when he was making some $10-15 million made him hard to trade. In March of 2010, the Washington Redskins restructured Albert Haynesworth's deal, giving him $21 million up front to free up money in the future and make him more trade-worthy.

I have now introduced new information that I did not have before into the discussion. The deal the Titans offered the Redskins was for a fourth round pick and tight end Bo Scaife. Mike Shanahan did not like that deal, as he wanted Kenny Britt to be part of the package, and likely wanted the Titans to take on some of the burden of the $21 million we had given Haynesworth up front.

What I said was, his original contract, before it got restructured IN MARCH, made him untradeable. And as I have repeatedly said, the contract after it got restructured was much more friendly to a trade, but the $21 million we had paid Haynesworth, up front, IN MARCH, made Shanahan balk at the idea of trading him without another team taking up the financial burden.

All of this happened before training camp.

I also find it ironic that you defend Bill Belichick for taking on a character risk while slamming Mike Shanahan for not getting rid of one who had basically stolen $21 million from him. But that's just what you do. "What this? I fact I don't like? Welp, I'm just gonna ignore this one..."

[thesubmittedone]

What I saw was a player floundering at NT and doing only a little better at tackle

Albert Haynesworth on Redskins' 3-4 Defense: 'I'm Just Not That Good at It'

I'm sorry, OF, you saw wrong. I mean, he barely even played that position anyway for you to see anything. We had Kemo there the majority of the time. But when he did and when he was willing, he dominated. So I can't believe you here, I'm sorry. I don't think you saw anything and I don't think you even remember. Sorry to have to judge like that, but I can't believe you would say these things.

He's a big fat stinking liar, too, so you could give me a million quotes from him and it wouldn't matter. The fact is, when he wanted to he was awesome for our D. All the players were excited about his play as well after those games. He had freakish athleticism and was the perfect size for NT. He just didn't like playing a position where he has to actually sacrifice his body for other players to get the glory. That's all it was and will ever be.

And your logic is just not flowing smoothly here, my good friend. You even admit a few posts up that he had "character flaws", yet you want me to accept his statements? What, exactly, were those character issues that weren't a fit for our team? And why wouldn't they give you enough reason to view anything he says as untrustworthy?

[DogofWar1]

What I saw was a player floundering at NT and doing only a little better at tackle
Albert Haynesworth on Redskins' 3-4 Defense: 'I'm Just Not That Good at It'

That was in October though. By March the die had already been cast for the season when he got paid. It was an unfortunate timetable and expectations problem, and Al's own statements raised the expectations among the coaching staff.

[Burgold]

That was in October though. By March the die had already been cast for the season when he got paid. It was an unfortunate timetable and expectations problem, and Al's own statements raised the expectations among the coaching staff.

Yeah, what I recall was Haynesworth and the Redskins arguing about that bonus, but then agreeing that Haynesworth could be paid it if he promised to be a good soldier. Albert agreed then skipped all the minicamps and comes into camp grossly out of shape. Basically, he was a bad actor who renegged on his word. Stunning, people would fault Shannahan for this.

[thesubmittedone]

Yeah, what I recall was Haynesworth and the Redskins arguing about that bonus, but then agreeing that Haynesworth could be paid it if he promised to be a good soldier. Albert agreed then skipped all the minicamps and comes into camp grossly out of shape. Basically, he was a bad actor who renegged on his word. Stunning, people would fault Shannahan for this.

Incredibly stunning. Especially in the context of just how badly we needed a culture change in 2010. It's like that didn't happen or something. We all forget about Portis and the gang running the show under Zorn. Randle El going into Zorn's office after hearing about being benched as a returner and getting the job back. Fat Al leaving on Christmas or whatever. Yeah.

Like I said, the only thing one can fault Mike here for is the fact that he actually believed slightly that Albert would get his act together. That's all. That is hardly an indictment, but if they want to be bothered by that then I guess it's their right.

[NLC1054]

I'm sorry, OF, you saw wrong. He's a big fat stinking liar, too, so you could give me a million quotes from him and it wouldn't matter. The fact is, when he wanted to he was awesome for our D. All the players were excited about his play as well after those games. He had freakish athleticism and was the perfect size for NT. He just didn't like playing a position where he has to actually sacrifice his body for other players to get the glory. That's all it was and will ever be.

That was his problem playing in Blanche's 4-3 as well; he didn't like having to absorb blocks while Carter and Rak got the glory.

Fat Al wanted one thing; to rush the quarterback. Every down. If he ever dedicated himself to just being the best football player possible, dude would've been unstoppable. You kill for his physical attributes in a d-tackle. But he didn't want to play for anything but the money. There's a reason why his best two years came in contract years. It was all that motivated him.

When Vinny gave him that fat contract with all that guaranteed money, he just stop caring. Full stop. To Haslett's credit, he thought he could work with and motivate him, but restructuring his contract and given him all his money up front only exacerbated the problem. And Shanahan sure as hell was not going to let Haynesworth steal that money from us, without playing a down, without getting a helluva a deal for it.

No one with any business savvy or ethics would let that happen.

---------- Post added November-25th-2012 at 06:49 PM ----------

Like I said, the only thing one can fault Mike here for is the fact that he actually believed slightly that Albert would get his act together. That's all. That is hardly an indictment, but if they want to be bothered by that then I guess it's their right.

Well clearly Bill Belichick believed in him, so clearly Mike is the guy who did something wrong, because Bill Belichick doesn't make mistakes.

[thesubmittedone]

^^ Agreed, and I'd add that no one who wanted to let everyone else know they can't pull that kind of crap under his authority would just let Haynesworth go for nothing. That basically says to any player here that they can get paid, complain, and get traded at worst. What the Haynesworth saga showed was that Mike was perfectly content in letting you rot on the bench and having the entire league move on without you if you act that way.

Good. Awesome.

God damnit that punk makes me angry. That cap penalty is mainly his fault, too. Ugh, makes me sick. We could've had the best NT right now in the league had he wanted to play that position with his skills. The penetration he got in the couple games he actually tried hard in was magnificent.

[NLC1054]

God damnit that punk makes me angry. That cap penalty is mainly his fault, too. Ugh, makes me sick. We could've had the best NT right now in the league had he wanted to play that position with his skills. The penetration he got in the couple games he actually tried hard in was magnificent.

He played his ass off versus the Bears in 2010. Don't know why he decided to turn it on that day, but he looked pretty damn good. And the more he played well, the more Haslett would put him in on defense. Same thing versus the Eagles in Week 5, versus the Vikings. The better dude played, the more he hustled, the more playing time he got. Seems simple, right?

But he'd just turn an off-switch and just dog it. That play in the Monday Night Massacre just sealed it. He flat out didn't care.

[Oldfan]

I did not alter my position, Oldfan. Let me explain it in plain English.

I can't wait.

I said before, his original contract when he was making some $10-15 million made him hard to trade. In March of 2010, the Washington Redskins restructured Albert Haynesworth's deal, giving him $21 million up front to free up money in the future and make him more trade-worthy.

Okay, now why did you claim that AL was untradeable when I suggested he could have been traded in the preseason? How about answering that in English?

What I said was, his original contract, before it got restructured IN MARCH, made him untradeable.

I have gone back over your posts and I can't find any comment where you claim to know when the contract was fixed. Once again, if you knew this, then why did you say he was untradeable when I said that Al should have been traded in the preseason?

I also find it ironic that you defend Bill Belichick for taking on a character risk while slamming Mike Shanahan for not getting rid of one who had basically stolen $21 million from him. But that's just what you do. "What this? I fact I don't like? Welp, I'm just gonna ignore this one..."

How can there be irony in two very different decisions?

1) Haynesworth is a very big problem to Coach 1 (It's not a question of MAYBE he will present a problem);

2) Coach 2 has a chance to obtain Al who offers the potential of a high gain at at low cost while risking that the player might also become a problem for him.

But that's just what you do. "What this? I fact I don't like? Welp, I'm just gonna ignore this one..."

When you see ironies (contradictions) that don't exist, I can understand how you might come to such unfair conclusions and make stupid accusations.