What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Albert Haynesworth bristles over deal (1 Viewer)

Not Sure

Not Sure

Footballguy
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5617037

Albert Haynesworth bristles over deal

WASHINGTON -- Albert Haynesworth said Saturday his $100 million contract doesn't make him a slave to the Washington Redskins.

In an interview with 106.7 The Fan, the two-time All-Pro defensive tackle said the big paychecks don't mean he can't push back when the team asks him to play a different position.

“Just because somebody pay you money don't mean they'll make you do whatever they want ... does that mean everything is for sale?”

-- Albert Haynesworth

Haynesworth, who rarely speaks to the media, was upset this year when the Redskins switched to a 3-4 defense and told him he would be playing nose tackle.

Haynesworth protested by staying away from the team's offseason conditioning program and practices. He also skipped a mandatory minicamp and was unable to pass the team's conditioning test until the 10th day of training camp -- all despite receiving a $21 million bonus on April 1.

"I guess in this world we don't have a lot of people with, like, backbones," Haynesworth said. "Just because somebody pay you money don't mean they'll make you do whatever they want or whatever. I mean, does that mean everything is for sale?

"I mean, I'm not for sale. Yeah, I signed the contract and got paid a lot of money, but ... that don't mean I'm for sale or a slave or whatever."

Haynesworth said it was agreed that he would play defensive tackle in a 4-3 system when he signed with the Redskins in 2009, but the team has since overhauled its front office, coaching staff and offensive and defensive schemes. He said he now likes the new scheme better as he works with defensive coordinator Jim Haslett.

Haynesworth made a passing reference to his disputes with coach Mike Shanahan, saying some things "went down with me and Mike," but he did not elaborate. He also said he doesn't like the spotlight and would rather be someone who can just "go to Wal-Mart and hang out."

Haynesworth implied he would be playing in Sunday's game against the St. Louis Rams. He was used as a backup in the season opener against Dallas and missed last week's game against Houston with a sprained ankle.

 
A fat POS being paid millions and millions of dollars to PLAY a GAME should never be allowed to use or refer to himself as a friggin' slave. Unbelievable stupidity.

 
I had no idea being asked to switch from DT in a 4-3 to NT in a 3-4 was the equivalent to slavery. I have a much better understanding of what enslaved people experienced throughout history now. Haynesworth is a wise man who can teach us all a lot about the hardships people have gone through.

 
Like it or not, Haynesworth has a point. He had his choice of going almost anywhere he wanted. He signed with Washington to with the understanding that he would play the 4-3.

What if you signed on to a company to work sales. After being there a few months, they say they now need a janitor. Your pay will be the same. In any profession except sports, you have to choice to accept the change or leave. Not Haynesworth.

He has to use what little leverage he has. He signed to pay the 4-3 not 3-4. Nose tackles in the 3-4 do take on more injury risk and cant be as aggressive. With football careers being so short, players should do what they can to prolong their career and maximize their effectiveness as they as always one play away from it all ending.

 
atl3695 said:
Like it or not, Haynesworth has a point. He had his choice of going almost anywhere he wanted. He signed with Washington to with the understanding that he would play the 4-3.What if you signed on to a company to work sales. After being there a few months, they say they now need a janitor. Your pay will be the same. In any profession except sports, you have to choice to accept the change or leave. Not Haynesworth.He has to use what little leverage he has. He signed to pay the 4-3 not 3-4. Nose tackles in the 3-4 do take on more injury risk and cant be as aggressive. With football careers being so short, players should do what they can to prolong their career and maximize their effectiveness as they as always one play away from it all ending.
Click to expand...
Seriously? I can now see why people are saying the Shark Pool is declining. Going from a 4-3 defensive tackle to a 3-4 nose tackle is not even close to the equivalent of being switched from sales to janitorial work. It would be closer to asking a math teacher to switch from teaching algebra to algebra 2. Besides, Haynesworth isn't comparing the position change to a career change. He's comparing it to being made a slave! Also, how do you figure a nose tackle is more likely to be injured than a 4-3 defensive tackle? Any player on the field is one play away from it all ending. Haynesworthless has no point whatsoever. None.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The issue here is they told him what they wanted to do and offered him the chance to leave before the big paycheck. He took it knowing full well what would be expected of him. I have no sympathy for him, he's a jerk.

 
LTF said:
A fat POS being paid millions and millions of dollars to PLAY a GAME should never be allowed to use or refer to himself as a friggin' slave. Unbelievable stupidity.
Click to expand...
Hold up, since when is Haynesworth actually having to play, practice or do anything at all except sit round the house and eat?
 
And it's not like he's playing for a contract year. What does it matter if his stats may go down by going to a 3-4. Unless he thinks he's a HoFer if he stays in a 4-3 and not in a 3-4. Doubt that he's thinking about that though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not Sure said:
"I guess in this world we don't have a lot of people with, like, backbones," Haynesworth said. "Just because somebody pay you money don't mean they'll make you do whatever they want or whatever. I mean, does that mean everything is for sale?
Click to expand...
It's called a f-ing job. They pay you to do something...you do it. Do these idiot athletes have any idea how the real world works?
 
atl3695 said:
What if you signed on to a company to work sales. After being there a few months, they say they now need a janitor.
Click to expand...
:) Its more similar to saying that instead of covering the east side of town you now have to cover the west side of town. Employers have every right to do that.
 
atl3695 said:
Like it or not, Haynesworth has a point. He had his choice of going almost anywhere he wanted. He signed with Washington to with the understanding that he would play the 4-3.What if you signed on to a company to work sales. After being there a few months, they say they now need a janitor. Your pay will be the same. In any profession except sports, you have to choice to accept the change or leave. Not Haynesworth.He has to use what little leverage he has. He signed to pay the 4-3 not 3-4. Nose tackles in the 3-4 do take on more injury risk and cant be as aggressive. With football careers being so short, players should do what they can to prolong their career and maximize their effectiveness as they as always one play away from it all ending.
Click to expand...
Let's try to make a more accurate analogy. What if you signed on to a company to work sales? After being there for A YEAR, they say they now need a janitor. YOU RECIEVE A 21 MILLION BONUS, to stay with the company, and basically become that "janitor." After getting the bonus, you proceed to fail to show up to work, then when you show up, you aren't prepared to work, and then you ##### about being a janitor (conveniently forgetting about the $21 million you accepted).That's a little more accurate, um-kay?He signed a huge contract, played one season, #####ed about the defense LAST YEAR, knew a 3-4 was being installed, waited until AFTER he received his $21 million bonus, THEN he complained and held out.BTW-the fact that a company pays you doesn't make you a slave, but it does make you an employee. Haynesworth is the employee of the Redskins, and they could make him play ST if they chose to, unless his contract specifically forbids it (which, to my knowledge, it doesn't). Teams insert clauses (that forbid certain activities, for example) in players' contract all the times, and when a guy is a FA, he can ask for the same (no-trade clauses, for example), so Haynesworth signed his contract, got his money, now he should shut up and do what he's told.
 
I don't blame him one bit. He wouldn't have signed there if he had to play NT, and I don't believe the Redskins didn't know his preferences when they paid him $20 million this off-season.

Leave it to the Redskins to complete overhaul their defensive scheme to not play on the strengths of their best defensive player.

 
atl3695 said:
Like it or not, Haynesworth has a point. He had his choice of going almost anywhere he wanted. He signed with Washington to with the understanding that he would play the 4-3.

What if you signed on to a company to work sales. After being there a few months, they say they now need a janitor. Your pay will be the same. In any profession except sports, you have to choice to accept the change or leave. Not Haynesworth.

He has to use what little leverage he has. He signed to pay the 4-3 not 3-4. Nose tackles in the 3-4 do take on more injury risk and cant be as aggressive. With football careers being so short, players should do what they can to prolong their career and maximize their effectiveness as they as always one play away from it all ending.
Click to expand...
Is that in his contract, or was it just a reckless assumption by him?

 
K8! said:
atl3695 said:
Like it or not, Haynesworth has a point. He had his choice of going almost anywhere he wanted. He signed with Washington to with the understanding that he would play the 4-3.

What if you signed on to a company to work sales. After being there a few months, they say they now need a janitor. Your pay will be the same. In any profession except sports, you have to choice to accept the change or leave. Not Haynesworth.

He has to use what little leverage he has. He signed to pay the 4-3 not 3-4. Nose tackles in the 3-4 do take on more injury risk and cant be as aggressive. With football careers being so short, players should do what they can to prolong their career and maximize their effectiveness as they as always one play away from it all ending.
Click to expand...
Is that in his contract, or was it just a reckless assumption by him?
Click to expand...
I was just going to post the same thing. Does it state specifically in his contract that he was to play only the 4-3 and not the 3-4?
 
This guy is a tool of the highest order.

And what is funny is, you just know that he is one of these idiot players who is making millions, but will be broke within 5-10 years after he stops playing. And then he will be wishing someone would pay his fat, crippled ### that much money to do something he doesn't want to do.

 
Donsmith753 said:
The issue here is they told him what they wanted to do and offered him the chance to leave before the big paycheck. He took it knowing full well what would be expected of him. I have no sympathy for him, he's a jerk.
Click to expand...
They were obligated to pay him that big check. Obligated by the contract they -- the Redskins --- signed with Haynesworth. Saying words at a meeting trying to make him quit doesn't change that. Teams have contract obligations too.
 
beavers said:
Does it state specifically in his contract that he was to play only the 4-3 and not the 3-4?
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. The owner of the team assured him they'd use him as a tackle in a 4-3 defense before Haynesworth would sign a contract with them.
 
There is a lot more that Haynesworth said in the 15-minute interview that isn't so headline-grabbing, by the way.

There's more here.

"There is zero, zero distractions or animosity or anything in the locker room," Haynesworth said. "I mean, we're a team, we're family, we're brothers. We're always joking, always acting crazy and all that stuff. I mean, there's nothing from the locker room. Everything is outside. I can say that and put my hand on the Bible and everything. I promise you. There is nothing like that happening in the locker room. I mean, it's a perfect locker room. I mean, right up to the packages and stuff."

(That last line was a joke about Clinton Portis. And not a bad one, either.)
Click to expand...
Haynesworth on buying flatscreens for Redskins employees last year: "The ladies that work for us and stuff, they do a lot for us, I got them TVs....The equipment room guys and the training room guys, guys that definitely help us out. Every year, every team I've been on, they always got money from guys, or a few hundred dollars, and everybody put that in a pot and they would split it and divide it and give it to them. Well, instead of just giving that,I decided just to go and do TVs or something like that, and this year too I'll do something else, something else cool that I'll give em."

Haynesworth on the future: " I mean, I'm just here. I can't predict what can happen in the future, but right now, I'm just trying to get better and help this team win and definitely give my best and get back up to being the most dominant defensive tackle in the game."
Click to expand...
Full interview audio is here.
 
Seriously? I can now see why people are saying the Shark Pool is declining. Going from a 4-3 defensive tackle to a 3-4 nose tackle is not even close to the equivalent of being switched from sales to janitorial work. It would be closer to asking a math teacher to switch from teaching algebra to algebra 2. Besides, Haynesworth isn't comparing the position change to a career change. He's comparing it to being made a slave! Also, how do you figure a nose tackle is more likely to be injured than a 4-3 defensive tackle? Any player on the field is one play away from it all ending. Haynesworthless has no point whatsoever. None.
Click to expand...
First off, this actually shouldn't even be in the shark pool. It should be FFA as the point of the post is just whining about someone making lots of money and complaining about doing something some think is a dream job. You say going from 3-4 to 4-3 is no big deal. How would you know? Ever played NFL football? Your lack of understanding regarding the roles and risk of a tackle in 3-4 vs. 4-3 makes me think that you never played football on any level. You think Tom Brady would be excited if Billichek thought the best chance for them to win is to run the option? Its still playing qb right?The slave analogy is not new or uniuque to Haynesworth. Forty Million Dollar Slave by respected sportswriter Will Rhoden (http://www.amazon.com/Forty-Million-Dollar-Slaves-Redemption/dp/0609601202)gives the same argument and is just one of many. Don't confuse the messenger with the message. The "Shut up and do what your told" tone of these posts just reinforces his point.

In your analogy, what if the teacher didnt want to teach algebra 2? They are free to go to another school is they choose. Professional sports are the only profession where employees can be drafted, traded, and given take it or leave it below market pay(Vincent Jax). Haynesworth wasnt comparing the position switch to slavery, but the fact that he almost no options to do anything about it and the overall structure of professional sports.

And it's not like he's playing for a contract year. What does it matter if his stats may go down by going to a 3-4. Unless he thinks he's a HoFer if he stays in a 4-3 and not in a 3-4. Doubt that he's thinking about that though.
Click to expand...
Every year is a contract year for NFL players as there contracts are not guaranteed. Play bad, get contract terminated.

It's called a f-ing job. They pay you to do something...you do it. Do these idiot athletes have any idea how the real world works?
Click to expand...
Its more similar to saying that instead of covering the east side of town you now have to cover the west side of town. Employers have every right to do that.
Click to expand...
What if you signed on to a company to work sales? After being there for A YEAR, they say they now need a janitor. YOU RECIEVE A 21 MILLION BONUS, to stay with the company, and basically become that "janitor." After getting the bonus, you proceed to fail to show up to work, then when you show up, you aren't prepared to work, and then you ##### about being a janitor (conveniently forgetting about the $21 million you accepted).
Click to expand...
In the "real word" if you dont like your employer, you can switch to another in the same profession. Employers do have the right to make changes. Employees have the right to accept the changes or find another employer. The fact that he made 21 mil is irrelevant. Many high paying employees(lawyers, investment bankers) switch jobs all the time. Professional sports need the anti-trust exemption because what they do would be considered illegal without it.The word slave may be a poor word choice but its an extreme that gets the point across.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've tried to keep an open mind about this and thought that maybe Shanny pushed the issue some...but no. This is the type of guy you just keep giving him more rope. I hope Shanny makes him run 100 laps for acting like this and makes him play RG on the offense.

Skins fans you have my condolences.

 
Somewhere his agent and the Titans are smiling for him just knocking down his trade value with this worldwide exposure of his bad attitude.

No way the Redskins can get a 4th rounder with him carrying his contract to a new team. Remember teams still have to work with the cap all season long. I imagine any team that trades for him has to cut players to get under the cap.

 
fatness said:
beavers said:
Does it state specifically in his contract that he was to play only the 4-3 and not the 3-4?
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. The owner of the team assured him they'd use him as a tackle in a 4-3 defense before Haynesworth would sign a contract with them.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the same way that my old boss assured me that he would be in his position for 3 years. He left 2 months after I accepted the position.
 
atl3695 said:
First off, this actually shouldn't even be in the shark pool. It should be FFA as the point of the post is just whining about someone making lots of money and complaining about doing something some think is a dream job. You say going from 3-4 to 4-3 is no big deal. How would you know? Ever played NFL football? Your lack of understanding regarding the roles and risk of a tackle in 3-4 vs. 4-3 makes me think that you never played football on any level. You think Tom Brady would be excited if Billichek thought the best chance for them to win is to run the option? Its still playing qb right?

The slave analogy is not new or uniuque to Haynesworth. Forty Million Dollar Slave by respected sportswriter Will Rhoden (http://www.amazon.com/Forty-Million-Dollar-Slaves-Redemption/dp/0609601202)gives the same argument and is just one of many. Don't confuse the messenger with the message. The "Shut up and do what your told" tone of these posts just reinforces his point.

In your analogy, what if the teacher didnt want to teach algebra 2? They are free to go to another school is they choose. Professional sports are the only profession where employees can be drafted, traded, and given take it or leave it below market pay(Vincent Jax). Haynesworth wasnt comparing the position switch to slavery, but the fact that he almost no options to do anything about it and the overall structure of professional sports.

Every year is a contract year for NFL players as there contracts are not guaranteed. Play bad, get contract terminated.

In the "real word" if you dont like your employer, you can switch to another in the same profession. Employers do have the right to make changes. Employees have the right to accept the changes or find another employer. The fact that he made 21 mil is irrelevant. Many high paying employees(lawyers, investment bankers) switch jobs all the time. Professional sports need the anti-trust exemption because what they do would be considered illegal without it.The word slave may be a poor word choice but its an extreme that gets the point across.
Click to expand...
The NFL is not the only professional football league, just the highest paying one. He doesn't have to play in the NFL to be a professional football player. But if you go for the job for the money, you have to play by the rules of the leage you just signed on with.

You also make it sound as if he is "stuck" even within the NFL. Both parties agreed to a multi-year contract. Albert could have chosen to not sign a multi-year deal, or have specific language in his contract added that he wouldn't change positions.

I understand the reasons that Albert doesn't want to play NT. I just don't feel that he should get a say in it. Sorry, but players don't choose what defense schemes and positions they get to play.

It still amazes me that these players can simply not show up for work, not do what they are told, and still retain jobs. No "real world" job allows that.

 
beavers said:
fatness said:
beavers said:
Does it state specifically in his contract that he was to play only the 4-3 and not the 3-4?
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. The owner of the team assured him they'd use him as a tackle in a 4-3 defense before Haynesworth would sign a contract with them.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the same way that my old boss assured me that he would be in his position for 3 years. He left 2 months after I accepted the position.
Click to expand...
Your boss left. Haynesworth's boss is still there, still owns the team.
 
fatness said:
beavers said:
fatness said:
beavers said:
Does it state specifically in his contract that he was to play only the 4-3 and not the 3-4?
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. The owner of the team assured him they'd use him as a tackle in a 4-3 defense before Haynesworth would sign a contract with them.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the same way that my old boss assured me that he would be in his position for 3 years. He left 2 months after I accepted the position.
Click to expand...
Your boss left. Haynesworth's boss is still there, still owns the team.
Click to expand...
My boss was under no contractual obligation to me to stay just like the Redskins were under no contractual obligation to stay in a 4-3. My boss did what was in the best interest of the company, which is what the Redskins did when they switched to a 3-4.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ministry of Pain said:
I hope Shanny makes him run 100 laps for acting like this and makes him play RG on the offense.
Click to expand...
The Redskins starting nose tackle, Kemoteau, has been getting pushed around in preseason and the regular season. His leg strength is not what it needs to be to hold his position. The backup nose tackle, Bryant, is out with a concussion. The other nose tackle they have is Haynesworth, who frankly is better than the other 2.I realize it's appealing to want coaches to 'send a message', but the job also involves trying to win each game. Notice any pressure from the Redskin defensive line during the 4th quarter last week when the Texans rallied from being down 10-27 to win the game? There wasn't any. Haynesworth was inactive for that game. That was a bad coaching decision, unless somehow letting Schaub have adequate time to tear apart the Redskin defense was somehow a good move. Haynesworth should have been active for that game and playing. He should be active and playing today, if the coach wants to make his best effort to win the game.
 
beavers said:
My boss was under no contractual obligation to me to stay just like the Redskins were under no contractual obligation to stay in a 4-3. My boss did what was in the best interest of the company, which is what the Redskins did when they switched to a 3-4.
Click to expand...
That is why your situation isn't equivalent.
 
fatness said:
beavers said:
fatness said:
beavers said:
Does it state specifically in his contract that he was to play only the 4-3 and not the 3-4?
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. The owner of the team assured him they'd use him as a tackle in a 4-3 defense before Haynesworth would sign a contract with them.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the same way that my old boss assured me that he would be in his position for 3 years. He left 2 months after I accepted the position.
Click to expand...
Your boss left. Haynesworth's boss is still there, still owns the team.
Click to expand...
Thats the point of an analogy...it makes a point without being identical to the compared situation :rolleyes:
 
Not Sure said:
WASHINGTON -- Albert Haynesworth said Saturday his $100 million contract doesn't make him a slave to the Washington Redskins.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with Haynesworth on this. Having a $100-million contact doesn't make him a slave. In fact, it makes him pretty much the exact opposite of a slave. It makes him extremely well paid.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fatness said:
beavers said:
My boss was under no contractual obligation to me to stay just like the Redskins were under no contractual obligation to stay in a 4-3. My boss did what was in the best interest of the company, which is what the Redskins did when they switched to a 3-4.
Click to expand...
That is why your situation isn't equivalent.
Click to expand...
Making a decision in the best interest of the organization isn't equivalent?
 
"We agreed upon coming to that [contract] that I'd play defensive tackle and not nose guard and all that other stuff. I was signing with a 4-3 team," he continued. "It was a lot of promises and stuff like that. But now, it's been better, dealing with [defensive coordinator Jim] Haslett, and we run a lot of 4-3 stuff and you'll see that tomorrow.

"I really get to get after the quarterback more than I did last year. Last year it wasn't a focus on sacks and stuff like that. A lot of people say well how could you say that, we had 40 sacks. I mean, a lot of that just happened just because it just happened. Like [brian Orakpo] getting 11 sacks. I mean, the way we focus on pass rushing now is a heck of a lot better than what we did last year, and you should see more sacks from that, hopefully, especially if we're up."
Click to expand...
link
 
atl3695 said:
In the "real word" if you dont like your employer, you can switch to another in the same profession. Employers do have the right to make changes. Employees have the right to accept the changes or find another employer. The fact that he made 21 mil is irrelevant. Many high paying employees(lawyers, investment bankers) switch jobs all the time.
Click to expand...
In the real world, Haynesworth wouldn't make $100 million. You can't accept only the benefits of playing in the NFL without accepting the rest of it. It's a package deal.
Professional sports need the anti-trust exemption because what they do would be considered illegal without it.
Click to expand...
The NFL doesn't have any special antitrust exemption on labor issues. It has the same exemption as every other employer that bargains with a union. You can't accept only the benefits of collective bargaining without accepting the rest of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
beavers said:
Making a decision in the best interest of the organization isn't equivalent?
Click to expand...
A hiring promise and decision made by a lower-level employee (your boss who left after 2 months) isn't equivalent to a hiring promise and decision made by the owner of the company (Dan Snyder, who is still there). I'm curious also as to how the decision to move to a 3-4 defense is in the 'best interest of the organization', since that phrase keeps getting used. Compare the Redskins defense last year to the first 2 games of this year, and if there's any conclusion at all to be drawn it's that the 3-4 did not suit the personnel on their roster and is doing worse in games.
 
fatness said:
"We agreed upon coming to that [contract] that I'd play defensive tackle and not nose guard and all that other stuff. I was signing with a 4-3 team," he continued. "It was a lot of promises and stuff like that. But now, it's been better, dealing with [defensive coordinator Jim] Haslett, and we run a lot of 4-3 stuff and you'll see that tomorrow.

"I really get to get after the quarterback more than I did last year. Last year it wasn't a focus on sacks and stuff like that. A lot of people say well how could you say that, we had 40 sacks. I mean, a lot of that just happened just because it just happened. Like [brian Orakpo] getting 11 sacks. I mean, the way we focus on pass rushing now is a heck of a lot better than what we did last year, and you should see more sacks from that, hopefully, especially if we're up."
Click to expand...
link
Click to expand...
Is this supposed to be earth shattering news? How is this different than a promise in an interview then a year later, a company changes their strategy due to what's best for them?

 
fatness said:
beavers said:
Making a decision in the best interest of the organization isn't equivalent?
Click to expand...
A hiring promise and decision made by a lower-level employee (your boss who left after 2 months) isn't equivalent to a hiring promise and decision made by the owner of the company (Dan Snyder, who is still there). I'm curious also as to how the decision to move to a 3-4 defense is in the 'best interest of the organization', since that phrase keeps getting used. Compare the Redskins defense last year to the first 2 games of this year, and if there's any conclusion at all to be drawn it's that the 3-4 did not suit the personnel on their roster and is doing worse in games.
Click to expand...
You know my level within my company? You're reaching here ....An insurance company can say they want to expand their product offerings by acquiring pet insurance business. The success may not be realized for a few years. Good or bad, it was the strategic intent to improve the company.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wait. So now it's NOT because of his mystery ailment that he probably borrowed from Percy Harvin, it is because he is a slave and doensn't want to play a different position? Poor poor rich Albert.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Somebody should inform Haynesworth that slaves weren't given 100 mil contracts. They were beaten, lynched, raped, and sepated from family. Oh yeah, they also worked for free.

For him to even use that word in this instance is poor taste and does nothing but hurt the struggles his race has been trying to overcome since the Emancipation Proclamation. For anyone to defend him is misguided. We should not confuse job satisfaction with crimes against humanity. I am sure he was just rambling and too much is being made of this but in a time when many shock-jocks have lost their jobs due to ramblings, he should be more careful in what he says.

I don't blame him for being upset. I get upset when I have to unexpectedly cover lunchroom duty, but lets keep it in perspective Al.

 
fatness said:
Donsmith753 said:
The issue here is they told him what they wanted to do and offered him the chance to leave before the big paycheck. He took it knowing full well what would be expected of him. I have no sympathy for him, he's a jerk.
Click to expand...
They were obligated to pay him that big check. Obligated by the contract they -- the Redskins --- signed with Haynesworth. Saying words at a meeting trying to make him quit doesn't change that. Teams have contract obligations too.
Click to expand...
So they are "obligated" to pay him $21 million, but he is not "obligated" to play where they tell him to play? :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Stinkin Ref
Being Drafted at His Ceiling....the new saying...
2
Replies
60
Views
2K
greenmountaingoat
greenmountaingoat
Joe Bryant
An Apology - Building And Creating A Better Shark Pool
3 4 5
Replies
200
Views
5K
Dan Lambskin
Dan Lambskin
Yogibear
Billy Shaw passes away at age 85
Replies
0
Views
328
Yogibear
Yogibear

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top