***OFFICIAL*** Washington Redskins 2011 Off-Season Thread (1 Viewer)

[Sebowski]

I just don't see the harm of forcing him to fulfill his contract, and I see a terrible precedent being set if we cut him or give him away after telling him explicitly he had until he cashed that check to find a new team.

The problem is, there's no way to force a player to play to the best of their ability. When players won't do that they get cut, like Lendale White did recently. Haynesworth's money for this year and beyond is no longer guaranteed (by skipping a mandatory minicamp he gave that up), so they can cut him at little or no cost. The message sent by that would be "we don't tolerate shirking around here any more." That's a good message to send. So if he shows up and plays hard, great. And if he doesn't, cut him and send a message.

edited to add: What the Redskins told Haynesworth in March or April about finding a new team before they wrote the check did not change anything at all about his contract. They were obligated to pay him the money if they wanted to keep him.

It changed when Shanahan told him. "You have until you cash that check to go play in a 4-3. You cash that check I expect you to play wherever I put you". Those are statements that need to be stood by.

 

[thayman]

Anyone notice the role reversal here? It used to be...Buster said something, everyone chimed in against what he said or gave the other side of the coin. Now, Fatty has taken over and he seems to have taken the "stir the pot" seat, which then everyone chimes in against him. Very interesting!!!

It's my job and I do it well. Too many people here right now confusing their personal feelings (about Haynesworth) with what an actual NFL team should do. If they make him sit all year to "break him", the only message other players on the team will get is that the front office hasn't changed, the team hasn't changed, and that football decisions are still made by the front office for for non-football reasons.I've had enough of that ####.I don't like Haynesworth. But he isn't worth harming the team over. If he comes to camp and is a problem just trade him or cut him and be done with it, and forget the silly-girl regrets about money already paid to him. Get on with playing football like a professional team --- players, coaches, and front office.

I doubt they can cut him. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out because I would be shocked if Goodell isn't involved in this somewhere. The fact that they are negotiating a CBA this year and the message a cut would send to other players won't be allowed. (at least that is the :tinhat: in me says)Haynesworth's situation is effecting more than just the Redskins.

 

[fatness]

You seem to be forgetting that Albert WANTS to be cut. Cutting him is giving him what he wants. If other players want to be cut after being paid a huge bonus, all they will have to do is follow suit and whine, complain, quit, etc. until they get cut and can go to another team for another fat paycheck as well.

With a new front office it's pretty obvious that they won't be including huge, strings-free bonuses in new contracts. That problem pretty much solves itself.

 

[fatness]

edited to add: What the Redskins told Haynesworth in March or April about finding a new team before they wrote the check did not change anything at all about his contract. They were obligated to pay him the money if they wanted to keep him.

It changed when Shanahan told him. "You have until you cash that check to go play in a 4-3. You cash that check I expect you to play wherever I put you". Those are statements that need to be stood by.

No, Sebowski. Conversations don't change contracts. Not one word of the signed agreement between the Redskins and Haynesworth changed.

 

[fatness]

I doubt they can cut him. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out because I would be shocked if Goodell isn't involved in this somewhere. The fact that they are negotiating a CBA this year and the message a cut would send to other players won't be allowed. (at least that is the :tinhat: in me says)Haynesworth's situation is effecting more than just the Redskins.

I don't think it affects many other teams, if any. What other teams offer contracts like the one the Redskins gave Haynesworth? If he comes to camp and does what he's supposed to, works hard, plays effectively then the problem solves itself. But if he doesn't show, or won't put out effort, or is insubordinate, I don't see why they can't cut him. His money's not guaranteed any more since he missed the mandatory minicamp.If someone has more information on this --- their ability or lack of ability to cut him --- I'd appreciate it, honestly. What is it in his contract or the CBA that would prevent them from doing that? Thanks.

 

[fatness]

Kyle Shanahan on running backs

Kyle Shanahan recently noted that the team already has a third-down back. "First thing with a third down back is you want a guy who can block. We have the best blocker as a back in Clinton Portis that I've ever been around," he said. "So I think we do have a third down back."

This isn't to say that the Redskins wouldn't be in the market for another back who might expand their arsenal on third down. It just might be a luxury. "You would always love to have that bonus as a coach, have some catching guys, stuff like that. But that's just a bonus," Shanahan said. "That's not necessarily what you're trying to win games with...But what you've got to have is a guy who can block and pick up protections. And we've got that."

Shanahan recently said that Portis will enter training camp as the team's No. 1 running back. He said an actual depth chart doesn't exist, so it's difficult to say how the backfield actually stacks up.

 

[thayman]

I doubt they can cut him. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out because I would be shocked if Goodell isn't involved in this somewhere. The fact that they are negotiating a CBA this year and the message a cut would send to other players won't be allowed. (at least that is the :tinhat: in me says)Haynesworth's situation is effecting more than just the Redskins.

I don't think it affects many other teams, if any. What other teams offer contracts like the one the Redskins gave Haynesworth? If he comes to camp and does what he's supposed to, works hard, plays effectively then the problem solves itself. But if he doesn't show, or won't put out effort, or is insubordinate, I don't see why they can't cut him. His money's not guaranteed any more since he missed the mandatory minicamp.If someone has more information on this --- their ability or lack of ability to cut him --- I'd appreciate it, honestly. What is it in his contract or the CBA that would prevent them from doing that? Thanks.

It's all from me. I just can't imagine that this year the Skins would just cut Haynesworth. It just seems to me if they cut him after giving him $20+ million check then other players from around the league can just act as disgruntled and expect to be cut. I'm just saying that I would expect that the NFL is keeping an eye on the entire situation.

 

[Sebowski]

edited to add: What the Redskins told Haynesworth in March or April about finding a new team before they wrote the check did not change anything at all about his contract. They were obligated to pay him the money if they wanted to keep him.

It changed when Shanahan told him. "You have until you cash that check to go play in a 4-3. You cash that check I expect you to play wherever I put you". Those are statements that need to be stood by.

No, Sebowski. Conversations don't change contracts. Not one word of the signed agreement between the Redskins and Haynesworth changed.

His contract doesn't say anything about a 4-3. Those were promises a professional football player should know can't be fulfilled forever. Especially in DC with our revolving coaches.

 

[Sebowski]

I doubt they can cut him. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out because I would be shocked if Goodell isn't involved in this somewhere. The fact that they are negotiating a CBA this year and the message a cut would send to other players won't be allowed. (at least that is the :tinhat: in me says)Haynesworth's situation is effecting more than just the Redskins.

I don't think it affects many other teams, if any. What other teams offer contracts like the one the Redskins gave Haynesworth? If he comes to camp and does what he's supposed to, works hard, plays effectively then the problem solves itself. But if he doesn't show, or won't put out effort, or is insubordinate, I don't see why they can't cut him. His money's not guaranteed any more since he missed the mandatory minicamp.If someone has more information on this --- their ability or lack of ability to cut him --- I'd appreciate it, honestly. What is it in his contract or the CBA that would prevent them from doing that? Thanks.

It's all from me. I just can't imagine that this year the Skins would just cut Haynesworth. It just seems to me if they cut him after giving him $20+ million check then other players from around the league can just act as disgruntled and expect to be cut. I'm just saying that I would expect that the NFL is keeping an eye on the entire situation.

One of our cap management strengths has been that we can be creative with The Danny's money. Player gets more upfront guaranteed for less later. Win-win. I'm sure other teams do this as well. If Haynesworth gets his way it will hurt all further contract negotiations.

 

[Bizkiteer]

I doubt they can cut him. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out because I would be shocked if Goodell isn't involved in this somewhere. The fact that they are negotiating a CBA this year and the message a cut would send to other players won't be allowed. (at least that is the :tinhat: in me says)Haynesworth's situation is effecting more than just the Redskins.

I don't think it affects many other teams, if any. What other teams offer contracts like the one the Redskins gave Haynesworth? If he comes to camp and does what he's supposed to, works hard, plays effectively then the problem solves itself. But if he doesn't show, or won't put out effort, or is insubordinate, I don't see why they can't cut him. His money's not guaranteed any more since he missed the mandatory minicamp.If someone has more information on this --- their ability or lack of ability to cut him --- I'd appreciate it, honestly. What is it in his contract or the CBA that would prevent them from doing that? Thanks.

It's all from me. I just can't imagine that this year the Skins would just cut Haynesworth. It just seems to me if they cut him after giving him $20+ million check then other players from around the league can just act as disgruntled and expect to be cut. I'm just saying that I would expect that the NFL is keeping an eye on the entire situation.

I'm sure the NFL and the NFLPA are watching it all with a microscope. The Fat Al situation is throwing caution to all teams/owners of the serious downside to paying signing bonus or cashing contract $$$ for cap relief. NFLPA realizes that Fat Al is hurting their ability in negotiations on the new CBA. Many have alluded to this in various interviews and it naive to think that all parties aren't paying close attention to the situation.As for our newest Redskin...Jamaal Brown was quoted as saying, if he was paid $100 mil...he'd do anything and everything. He said for that amount of money he'd show up and camp out for every event. He also stated that he'd play any position that the Redskins asked...I found Brown's comments very refreshing to hear. Although Fat Al's message board attorney will probably dispute it and spin it otherwise.

 

[fatness]

edited to add: What the Redskins told Haynesworth in March or April about finding a new team before they wrote the check did not change anything at all about his contract. They were obligated to pay him the money if they wanted to keep him.

It changed when Shanahan told him. "You have until you cash that check to go play in a 4-3. You cash that check I expect you to play wherever I put you". Those are statements that need to be stood by.

No, Sebowski. Conversations don't change contracts. Not one word of the signed agreement between the Redskins and Haynesworth changed.

His contract doesn't say anything about a 4-3. Those were promises a professional football player should know can't be fulfilled forever. Especially in DC with our revolving coaches.

Don't take my word for it then. This is Ryan O'Halloran

So what: Haynesworth hasn’t won many allies in the locker room with his behavior this offseason, choosing to skip all of the on-field – voluntary and mandatory – activities while his teammates went through three minicamps and organized team activities. But that he’ll report to the Redskins, if he’s still on the roster, isn’t a surprise. Nothing he’s done so far has jeopardized his $21 million roster bonus (received April 1). If he had chosen to no-show at training camp, it would trigger the Redskins’ justification for getting some of the money back.

Now what: We wait for the Redskins to either cut Haynesworth, trade Haynesworth or negotiate a buy-out/release with Haynesworth. It does neither party any good to have No. 92 show up for camp knowing that he doesn’t want to be there. When he does show up, he doesn’t compliment the defense, he compromises them.

They owed him the $21 million and had to pay it to him if they wanted to keep him. Period. The only thing that has changed so far, contract-wise, is that his salary this year and next year are no longer guaranteed because he skipped the mandatory minicamp. The reason it changed is because of contract wording and the CBA ---- the same reason the $21 million was owed, and that so far they can't get it back.

 

[fatness]

O'Halloran

Whereas most observers see a gaping hole along the Washington Redskins’ defensive line with Albert Haynesworth’s absence and likely departure, Jim Haslett sees a group with versatility and smarts. Following the Redskins’ final offseason workout, Haslett revealed who’s played where during the majority of workouts.

Right defensive end: Kedric Golston and Vonnie Holliday.

Left defensive end: Phillip Daniels and Adam Carriker.

Nose tackle: Maake Kemoeatu (who is injured), Carriker and Howard Green.

 

[fatness]

Redskins may be interested in Vincent Jackson

The Seahawks maintain interest, as do “several other teams,” according to one source. Among those teams, sources said, are the Washington Redskins. It is not known whether the Redskins have spoken to the Chargers regarding Jackson.

He would be a major upgrade to their receiving corps but I hate the idea of trading any more draft picks.Also, the Skins cut WR Marques Hagans.

 

[fatness]

Thursday July 29 4:00 p.m. Practice

Friday July 30 8:30 a.m. Practice

Saturday July 31 8:30 a.m. Practice

Sunday August 1 8:30 a.m. Practice

Monday August 2 8:30 a.m. Practice

Tuesday August 3 8:30 a.m. Practice

Wednesday August 4 8:30 a.m. Practice

Thursday August 5 8:30 a.m. Practice

Saturday August 7 Fan Appreciation Day at Noon

Tuesday August 10 8:30 a.m. Practice

Wednesday August 11 8:30 a.m. Practice

Sunday August 15 Practice (TBD)

Monday August 16 8:30 a.m. Practice

Wednesday August 18 8:30 a.m. Practice

Thursday August 19 Practice (TBD) – Camp Breaks

Training camp days open to the public

 

[fatness]

Steelers considering Flozell Adams.

Several teams have expressed interest in Adams, including the Washington Redskins.

 

[MikeApf]

Redskins may be interested in Vincent Jackson

The Seahawks maintain interest, as do “several other teams,” according to one source. Among those teams, sources said, are the Washington Redskins. It is not known whether the Redskins have spoken to the Chargers regarding Jackson.

He would be a major upgrade to their receiving corps but I hate the idea of trading any more draft picks.Also, the Skins cut WR Marques Hagans.

San Diego plays 3-4, right? I guess there is no chance that they could trade Haynesworth for Jackson straight up? That would be the ideal scenario for me, but I don't see it happening for a variety of reasons: a.) if Haynesworth wants to play 4-3, would SD want to take that problem on, and b.) if SD is trying to jettison guys with "attitudes", why would they want Fat Al. The only exception would be: if it's really not the 3-4 that Fat Al hates, but just the Redskins, might they pull it off anyway?I agree that giving up more draft picks is kind of aggravating, but there are also counter arguments. For instance: a.) in the past, what drove us nuts was trading draft picks for old guys on the downside of their careers...that is NOT the case with Jackson and b.) look at the young WRs we have drafted recently -- Kelly and Thomas -- is it really a better strategy to just keep "rolling the dice" on young guys when you can get a "proven" young guy?

I think based on Jackson's youth vs. trading for another "old" vet with only a few years left, the deal would be a good one. Definitely if you could trade a 3rd in future years (they don't have one next year I assume) I would do it. What do you think SD would require in the trade? Could you package either Thomas or Kelly with a 3rd rounder? Could you convince them to take Haynesworth straight up? The Redskins only have so many assets that would be valulable to the Chargers, so I'm not sure this deal will ever materialize, but it's an interesting scenario...

M

 

[buster c]

Redskins may be interested in Vincent Jackson

The Seahawks maintain interest, as do “several other teams,” according to one source. Among those teams, sources said, are the Washington Redskins. It is not known whether the Redskins have spoken to the Chargers regarding Jackson.

He would be a major upgrade to their receiving corps but I hate the idea of trading any more draft picks.Also, the Skins cut WR Marques Hagans.

San Diego plays 3-4, right? I guess there is no chance that they could trade Haynesworth for Jackson straight up? That would be the ideal scenario for me, but I don't see it happening for a variety of reasons: a.) if Haynesworth wants to play 4-3, would SD want to take that problem on, and b.) if SD is trying to jettison guys with "attitudes", why would they want Fat Al. The only exception would be: if it's really not the 3-4 that Fat Al hates, but just the Redskins, might they pull it off anyway?I agree that giving up more draft picks is kind of aggravating, but there are also counter arguments. For instance: a.) in the past, what drove us nuts was trading draft picks for old guys on the downside of their careers...that is NOT the case with Jackson and b.) look at the young WRs we have drafted recently -- Kelly and Thomas -- is it really a better strategy to just keep "rolling the dice" on young guys when you can get a "proven" young guy?

I think based on Jackson's youth vs. trading for another "old" vet with only a few years left, the deal would be a good one. Definitely if you could trade a 3rd in future years (they don't have one next year I assume) I would do it. What do you think SD would require in the trade? Could you package either Thomas or Kelly with a 3rd rounder? Could you convince them to take Haynesworth straight up? The Redskins only have so many assets that would be valulable to the Chargers, so I'm not sure this deal will ever materialize, but it's an interesting scenario...

M

I've been a fan of VJ, as he's done me right in FFL, but this sounds like classic Snyder: paying big $ for somebody who has earned it elsewhere.I worry VJ is solely motivated by $$$ (wants more then B Marshall just broke the bank for) and I worry he has a problem controlling his alcohol, which would not bode well for the DC scene.

In a deviation from all the kool-aide I've been chugging this off-season, we should see what we have with our 3rd year receivers, plus Moss, Wade, et al.

 

[nittanylion]

We're in lock-step here too, buster.

Vincent Jackson has helped make me some serious coin in FF, but I've heard opinions that he's money-centric to the Haynesworth extreme, so from that perspective, we'd be swapping likes for likes.

Also, although Vincent Jackson is a talented WR, he's nowhere near the caliber WR that Haynesworth is a DL (Haynesworth is a better DL than VJax is a WR). I liken swapping him for Haynesworth to be akin to trading Champ for Portis, where us adding anything else to our side of the equation would be ludicrous. As much as I hate Fat Albert the Human, I don't deny that he's an extremely effective weapon on the field when playing up to his potential. Assuming that's what the Chargers would get out of the deal (Albert giving 100%), even if we were to get VJax giving 100% in return, we'd still be coming up short from an impact perspective...

...because in my mind, with the addition of McNabb, an improved O-Line, a consistent and versatile Running Game, and the combined talent of Cooley and Fred Davis, I firmly believe that Santana Moss and the rest of the crew they have in camp right now is enough WR to make the Offense click without moving Fat Albert. Although I'd LIKE a big-play guy across from SMoss, I'm not sure we need that enough to capitulate to Fat Albert's demands. Moving Fat Albert is a big deal to me, because to me, it's tantamount to giving a petulant child his way. I have a zero-tolerance policy towards petulant children, and standing on principle is probably the most important quality of character to me besides being a man of one's word. It's more important that Wins/Losses to me, and not something I'm willing to compromise.

If I had any say in the matter, it would take a hell of a lot more than acquiring Vincent Jackson for me to take the hit to the Redskins organizational dignity that giving Fat Albert his way would cause.

My only answer to the Fat Albert question is to pay him to stay home for the remaining life of his Contract. Better not blow all that dough, doughboy, because I'm willing to bet you don't have the self control to keep yourself in shape for your next job interview six years from now, and that's the end of your gravy-train.

Screw that guy. Sometimes you have to be The Dog. As in: F with The Dog, wind up gettin' bit.

 

[buster c]

while I love the work my boy Fatty does with his comprehensive updates , ain't nothin better than to log on and see the pearly wisdom from my man NL

 

[fatness]

The thot plickens.

NFL Network's Steve Wyche reports that Jackson is currently in Phoenix, training with none other than Redskins quarterback Donovan McNabb. McNabb annually works out in Arizona during the offseason, but Jackson is a new addition to the practice field out west as he continues to stay away from pre-training camp activities in hopes of securing a long-term contract.

As we also would, Wyche cautions to not read too much into the connection. The players are simply trying to stay in shape. The Redskins' heavily rumored interest in Jackson, however, makes it more interesting than it normally would be.

 

[southeastjerome]

We're in lock-step here too, buster.Vincent Jackson has helped make me some serious coin in FF, but I've heard opinions that he's money-centric to the Haynesworth extreme, so from that perspective, we'd be swapping likes for likes.Also, although Vincent Jackson is a talented WR, he's nowhere near the caliber WR that Haynesworth is a DL (Haynesworth is a better DL than VJax is a WR). I liken swapping him for Haynesworth to be akin to trading Champ for Portis, where us adding anything else to our side of the equation would be ludicrous. As much as I hate Fat Albert the Human, I don't deny that he's an extremely effective weapon on the field when playing up to his potential. Assuming that's what the Chargers would get out of the deal (Albert giving 100%), even if we were to get VJax giving 100% in return, we'd still be coming up short from an impact perspective......because in my mind, with the addition of McNabb, an improved O-Line, a consistent and versatile Running Game, and the combined talent of Cooley and Fred Davis, I firmly believe that Santana Moss and the rest of the crew they have in camp right now is enough WR to make the Offense click without moving Fat Albert. Although I'd LIKE a big-play guy across from SMoss, I'm not sure we need that enough to capitulate to Fat Albert's demands. Moving Fat Albert is a big deal to me, because to me, it's tantamount to giving a petulant child his way. I have a zero-tolerance policy towards petulant children, and standing on principle is probably the most important quality of character to me besides being a man of one's word. It's more important that Wins/Losses to me, and not something I'm willing to compromise.If I had any say in the matter, it would take a hell of a lot more than acquiring Vincent Jackson for me to take the hit to the Redskins organizational dignity that giving Fat Albert his way would cause.My only answer to the Fat Albert question is to pay him to stay home for the remaining life of his Contract. Better not blow all that dough, doughboy, because I'm willing to bet you don't have the self control to keep yourself in shape for your next job interview six years from now, and that's the end of your gravy-train.Screw that guy. Sometimes you have to be The Dog. As in: F with The Dog, wind up gettin' bit.

Would you rather cut him or have him become a cancer with the team? Who cares about the Redskins dignity. If they can improve their team by moving him, then great. If that includes VJax, then so be it. I agree Albert is a better talent that VJ. I think a huge reason not to trade for VJ are his own character concerns and the fact that he'll likely miss the first 4 games of the season. Aside from that, trading Albert to another team that runs the 3-4, putting him in the same position he is in here is hardly giving him his way. Ultimately, I'd be surprised if this deal happened (involving Haynesworth) because of that. SD would not want to take on the risk of him becoming a petulant child as he is in DC right now.

 

[Lake Titicaca]

We're in lock-step here too, buster.Vincent Jackson has helped make me some serious coin in FF, but I've heard opinions that he's money-centric to the Haynesworth extreme, so from that perspective, we'd be swapping likes for likes.Also, although Vincent Jackson is a talented WR, he's nowhere near the caliber WR that Haynesworth is a DL (Haynesworth is a better DL than VJax is a WR). I liken swapping him for Haynesworth to be akin to trading Champ for Portis, where us adding anything else to our side of the equation would be ludicrous. As much as I hate Fat Albert the Human, I don't deny that he's an extremely effective weapon on the field when playing up to his potential. Assuming that's what the Chargers would get out of the deal (Albert giving 100%), even if we were to get VJax giving 100% in return, we'd still be coming up short from an impact perspective......because in my mind, with the addition of McNabb, an improved O-Line, a consistent and versatile Running Game, and the combined talent of Cooley and Fred Davis, I firmly believe that Santana Moss and the rest of the crew they have in camp right now is enough WR to make the Offense click without moving Fat Albert. Although I'd LIKE a big-play guy across from SMoss, I'm not sure we need that enough to capitulate to Fat Albert's demands. Moving Fat Albert is a big deal to me, because to me, it's tantamount to giving a petulant child his way. I have a zero-tolerance policy towards petulant children, and standing on principle is probably the most important quality of character to me besides being a man of one's word. It's more important that Wins/Losses to me, and not something I'm willing to compromise.If I had any say in the matter, it would take a hell of a lot more than acquiring Vincent Jackson for me to take the hit to the Redskins organizational dignity that giving Fat Albert his way would cause.My only answer to the Fat Albert question is to pay him to stay home for the remaining life of his Contract. Better not blow all that dough, doughboy, because I'm willing to bet you don't have the self control to keep yourself in shape for your next job interview six years from now, and that's the end of your gravy-train.Screw that guy. Sometimes you have to be The Dog. As in: F with The Dog, wind up gettin' bit.

Would you rather cut him or have him become a cancer with the team? Who cares about the Redskins dignity. If they can improve their team by moving him, then great. If that includes VJax, then so be it. I agree Albert is a better talent that VJ. I think a huge reason not to trade for VJ are his own character concerns and the fact that he'll likely miss the first 4 games of the season. Aside from that, trading Albert to another team that runs the 3-4, putting him in the same position he is in here is hardly giving him his way. Ultimately, I'd be surprised if this deal happened (involving Haynesworth) because of that. SD would not want to take on the risk of him becoming a petulant child as he is in DC right now.

I'm with nittany regarding making a stand. That's absolutely what you do unless your stubborn stand is going to turn you into a kamikaze pilot and destroy you in the process. I don't believe that that will be the case with Haynesworth who lacks the love of the cameras that TO has that would cause him to disrupt things not only behind the scenes but also in front of them. Albert will ultimately report and play hard. I even have more confidence in him to show up in shape, though obviously he won't know the playbook like he should. My concern about disruption would be more along the lines of him lining up on a given play as a NT and instead of occupying blockers just deciding on his own to play his game and just penetrate upfield, scheme be damned. I guess we'll see. Categorically, I don't like big investments in WR's. Those are as shaky as it gets, both because excellent WR's are not at the core of excellent offense, and also because historically they don't do well. If you think about it even the Pats didn't spend much to acquire Randy Moss, certainly the most successful recently acquired veteran WR, given that the Raiders dumped him for a 4th rounder. If that's all you're going to spend, fine, but forking over a huge contract or huge trade compensation or both just doesn't work for me. As nittany said, we already have two above average-to-excellent receiving TE's, a good complimentary WR in Moss to stretch the field, and (I hope) two developing young WR's in Kelly and Thomas to go with McNabb. That plus a healthy running game is more than adequate to be competitive. We need to park the shopping cart this offseason and develop what we have.

 

[fatness]

Albert will ultimately report and play hard.

If he reports to camp on time and plays hard (I hope he does) the problem solves itself. But if he doesn't, it does the team no good to pay him to stay home. They're better off cutting him (owing him no money) or trading him for what they can get.It's not like any other players on the team would follow Haynesworth's example of "I won't play unless I play the way I want to." Other players don't have $21 million in their pocket and are frankly more agreeable to doing what coaches tell them to do than Haynesworth is. Paying a guy to stay home may satisfy some fans' desire for revenge, but jeez, it makes the team look like ### clowns. Why would you pay someone to not work when you can cut them? The Skins would be a laughingstock. I think if he plays a year it'll work out, since the coaches will figure out what the rest of the league already knows --- he's not best at nose tackle. But I think the first week or 2 of training camp will tell the story of whether he's there to play or will remain a problem. And problems should be gotten rid of, not held on to.

 

[dgreen]

Why would you pay someone to not work when you can cut them?

He wants to be cut or traded. In order for him to get what he wants, he needs to give the Redskins what they want: money. You continue to pay him to not work in an effort to get back millions more.I agree that it's highly unlikely they'll run into this problem again and need to avoid setting a bad precedent. But, they'll run into other problems. And, in order to completely change the culture, they need to establish who is in charge and who isn't in charge.

 

[fatness]

I like the position-by-position analyses that Rich Tandler has been doing. There's not much going on now football-wise, and there's good information in some of them.

Tight ends.

Starter: Chris Cooley Confidence level: High

Backup: Fred Davis Confidence level: High

Starter competition: None

2009 starters: Cooley (7 games), Davis (8) (The Redskins started one game with three wide receivers and no tight end.)

In the mix: Lee Vickers, Logan Paulsen, Dennis Morris (also listed as a fullback)

Outgoing: Todd Yoder not re-signed as a free agent

No more Yoda jokes. Too bad.

If you combine the statistics from Cooley (29 receptions/332 yards/2 TD’s) and Davis (48/509/6), you actually have an area of the Redskins’ 2009 offense that had solid NFL productivity. Most NFL offensive coordinators would gladly take 77 catches for over 800 yards and 8 touchdowns from their tight ends every year.

The only other tight end to catch a pass in 2009 was Todd Yoder. He made the most out of his four catches, scoring three touchdowns.

TE is probably the strongest position on the team, talent-wise.

Although the Redskins, of course, did not reveal just how Cooley and Davis would be used when on the field at the same time, we got some hints during OTAs. For the most part, Cooley ran the shorter patterns that we are accustomed to seeing tight ends run. Davis frequently was seen running deep down the seam and hauling in a pass over a safety.

With the caveat that what is tried out in May and June may not ever see the field in September, Cooley is the possession receiver while Davis is the big-play guy. That doesn’t mean that Cooley can’t go down the seam, or that Davis won’t be sent out to pick up five yards on 3rd-and-4. But the basic roles seem to be taking shape.

 

[DCThunder]

Although the Redskins, of course, did not reveal just how Cooley and Davis would be used when on the field at the same time, we got some hints during OTAs. For the most part, Cooley ran the shorter patterns that we are accustomed to seeing tight ends run. Davis frequently was seen running deep down the seam and hauling in a pass over a safety.

With the caveat that what is tried out in May and June may not ever see the field in September, Cooley is the possession receiver while Davis is the big-play guy. That doesn’t mean that Cooley can’t go down the seam, or that Davis won’t be sent out to pick up five yards on 3rd-and-4. But the basic roles seem to be taking shape.

Can you say Don Warren and Clint Didier?

 

[buster c]

Albert will ultimately report and play hard.

If he reports to camp on time and plays hard (I hope he does) the problem solves itself. But if he doesn't, it does the team no good to pay him to stay home. They're better off cutting him (owing him no money) or trading him for what they can get.

if he doesn't, they suspend him without pay and he sits at home. cut him and you run the risk that he signs up with a potential opponent and conceivably stuffs Portis on 4th and goal to knock us out of the playoffs. you do not cut him under any circumstance when the suspension without pay option is available

 

[southeastjerome]

We're in lock-step here too, buster.Vincent Jackson has helped make me some serious coin in FF, but I've heard opinions that he's money-centric to the Haynesworth extreme, so from that perspective, we'd be swapping likes for likes.Also, although Vincent Jackson is a talented WR, he's nowhere near the caliber WR that Haynesworth is a DL (Haynesworth is a better DL than VJax is a WR). I liken swapping him for Haynesworth to be akin to trading Champ for Portis, where us adding anything else to our side of the equation would be ludicrous. As much as I hate Fat Albert the Human, I don't deny that he's an extremely effective weapon on the field when playing up to his potential. Assuming that's what the Chargers would get out of the deal (Albert giving 100%), even if we were to get VJax giving 100% in return, we'd still be coming up short from an impact perspective......because in my mind, with the addition of McNabb, an improved O-Line, a consistent and versatile Running Game, and the combined talent of Cooley and Fred Davis, I firmly believe that Santana Moss and the rest of the crew they have in camp right now is enough WR to make the Offense click without moving Fat Albert. Although I'd LIKE a big-play guy across from SMoss, I'm not sure we need that enough to capitulate to Fat Albert's demands. Moving Fat Albert is a big deal to me, because to me, it's tantamount to giving a petulant child his way. I have a zero-tolerance policy towards petulant children, and standing on principle is probably the most important quality of character to me besides being a man of one's word. It's more important that Wins/Losses to me, and not something I'm willing to compromise.If I had any say in the matter, it would take a hell of a lot more than acquiring Vincent Jackson for me to take the hit to the Redskins organizational dignity that giving Fat Albert his way would cause.My only answer to the Fat Albert question is to pay him to stay home for the remaining life of his Contract. Better not blow all that dough, doughboy, because I'm willing to bet you don't have the self control to keep yourself in shape for your next job interview six years from now, and that's the end of your gravy-train.Screw that guy. Sometimes you have to be The Dog. As in: F with The Dog, wind up gettin' bit.

Would you rather cut him or have him become a cancer with the team? Who cares about the Redskins dignity. If they can improve their team by moving him, then great. If that includes VJax, then so be it. I agree Albert is a better talent that VJ. I think a huge reason not to trade for VJ are his own character concerns and the fact that he'll likely miss the first 4 games of the season. Aside from that, trading Albert to another team that runs the 3-4, putting him in the same position he is in here is hardly giving him his way. Ultimately, I'd be surprised if this deal happened (involving Haynesworth) because of that. SD would not want to take on the risk of him becoming a petulant child as he is in DC right now.

I'm with nittany regarding making a stand. That's absolutely what you do unless your stubborn stand is going to turn you into a kamikaze pilot and destroy you in the process. I don't believe that that will be the case with Haynesworth who lacks the love of the cameras that TO has that would cause him to disrupt things not only behind the scenes but also in front of them. Albert will ultimately report and play hard. I even have more confidence in him to show up in shape, though obviously he won't know the playbook like he should. My concern about disruption would be more along the lines of him lining up on a given play as a NT and instead of occupying blockers just deciding on his own to play his game and just penetrate upfield, scheme be damned. I guess we'll see. Categorically, I don't like big investments in WR's. Those are as shaky as it gets, both because excellent WR's are not at the core of excellent offense, and also because historically they don't do well. If you think about it even the Pats didn't spend much to acquire Randy Moss, certainly the most successful recently acquired veteran WR, given that the Raiders dumped him for a 4th rounder. If that's all you're going to spend, fine, but forking over a huge contract or huge trade compensation or both just doesn't work for me. As nittany said, we already have two above average-to-excellent receiving TE's, a good complimentary WR in Moss to stretch the field, and (I hope) two developing young WR's in Kelly and Thomas to go with McNabb. That plus a healthy running game is more than adequate to be competitive. We need to park the shopping cart this offseason and develop what we have.

I don't disagree. What I do disagree with is the notion of keeping him just to protect the dignity of the team. I guess that's the gist of where I'm coming from. I am not a fan of big moves for WR's. I just don't see letting him rot just to keep dignity. I certainly wouldn't sell him for pennies on the dollar either.

 

[fatness]

What I do disagree with is the notion of keeping him just to protect the dignity of the team. I guess that's the gist of where I'm coming from. I am not a fan of big moves for WR's. I just don't see letting him rot just to keep dignity. I certainly wouldn't sell him for pennies on the dollar either.

I think the talk about protecting the dignity of the team is baloney. I think if the team lets him rot it would only be to get money back that they're embarrassed to have paid him. And I think some fans would support it just to feel some revenge.

 

[fatness]

Can you say Don Warren and Clint Didier?

I think Cooley and Davis will be 2 of their 3 leading receivers this year.

 

[fatness]

Rich Tandler on the Running Backs

Running back

Starter: Clinton Portis Confidence level: Medium

Backup: Larry Johnson Confidence level: High

Starter competition: Portis is the starter going into training camp, and Johnson will provide strong competition.

2009 starters: Portis (8 games), Ladell Betts (2), Rock Cartwright (2), Quinton Ganther (4)

In the mix: Willie Parker, Ryan Torain, Keiland Williams

Outgoing: Betts, Cartwright, Marcus Mason released, Ganther not offered restricted free agent tender

Incoming: Johnson, Parker, and Torain signed as free agents, Williams signed as undrafted free agent

Have Betts, Cartwright, and Mason signed with anyone yet? I know Ganther is with the Seahawks, but don't know if he'll stick or not.

When the workouts started in early April, Portis was there. According to Shanahan, he was there for every OTA session except for the last one and for every minicamp. During a session with the media, he vowed to prove his doubters wrong.

His improved attitude has earned him the starting job going into camp, according to Kyle Shanahan. That status, however, does not guarantee him the starting job when the season starts. Many observers thought that Johnson looked better during the practices that were open to the media. He looked quick, focused and he hustled on every play. Johnson has powerful motivation to perform in the form of some $9 million in incentives in his contract.

 

[Warrior]

What I do disagree with is the notion of keeping him just to protect the dignity of the team. I guess that's the gist of where I'm coming from. I am not a fan of big moves for WR's. I just don't see letting him rot just to keep dignity. I certainly wouldn't sell him for pennies on the dollar either.

I think the talk about protecting the dignity of the team is baloney. I think if the team lets him rot it would only be to get money back that they're embarrassed to have paid him. And I think some fans would support it just to feel some revenge.

Dignity? No, you're right...not important to the Redskins.But making an example of him to set the tone for future malcontents? Very important. Unless you want to deal with this same situation over and over with other players down the line.

 

[dgreen]

Can you say Don Warren and Clint Didier?

I think Cooley and Davis will be 2 of their 3 leading receivers this year.

I agree that could happen. Here's my offensive projections from the Team Spotlight thread. I think the passing is going to be spread around a lot. They just don't have that one guy to get 80-90 receptions.

Total Plays: 1,010Pass Plays: 570 (including sacks)Rush Plays: 440Total Yards: 5,545Pass Yards: 3,660 (including sack yardage)Rush Yards: 1,885Passing		 COMP  ATT  COMP%   YDS  Y/A  TD  INT  SACK SCKYDMcNabb	317  510   62.2  3695  7.2  23   11   27   200Grossman   18   30   60.0   180  6.0   1	2	3	15TOTAL	 335  540   62.0  3875  7.2  24   13   30   215Rushing		  ATT   YDS   YPA   TDPortis	200   850   4.3	7Johnson   150   625   4.2	5McNabb	 35   170   4.9	1Torain	 30   115   3.8	1Austin	  5	40   8.0	0Sellers	10	35   3.5	0Thomas	  5	30   6.0	0Moss		2	10   5.0	0Grossman	3	10   3.3	0TOTAL	 440  1885   4.3   14Receiving		   REC   YDS   YPR   TDMoss		50   665  13.3	4Cooley	  50   575  11.5	6Thomas	  40   530  13.3	5Kelly	   35   505  14.4	2Davis	   40   450  11.3	4Portis	  35   280   8.0	1Wade		20   255  12.8	1Torain	  25   175   7.0	1Galloway	10   150  15.0	0Austin	  10   140  14.0	0Johnson	 10	75   7.5	0Sellers	 10	75   7.5	0TOTAL	  335  3875  11.6   24

 

[dgreen]

From Hogshaven:

History Tells Me Bruce Allen Is In Control of Haynesworth

One of the cliches iterated ad nauseum, which I found early in life to be true, is "never burn your bridges." Whether it's running into people you met previously at parties, bars...or even old jobs. It happens all the time - the lesson in life, don't be a #####, you're going to run into that person again (and maybe she has hot friends).

Well, athletes throw that pearl of wisdom back into the sea once those lottery-sized paychecks roll in. It's pretty easy to tell people to F-off when you have millions of dollars. "Screw you. Trade me or release me - I'll never run into you again, and I don't care if I do." Well, that's not entirely true.

Keenan McCardell, the current WR Coach of the Redskins, was drafted by Joe Gibbs in the 12th round of the 1991 draft. He also played his last game as a Redskin in 2007. Flashback to the summer of 2004. McCardell was coming off a career year - 1,100+ yards, 9 TDs, and 2 Super Bowl TD catches. He's halfway through his 4-year contract with the Bucs (slated to make $2.5 and $2.75 the next 2 years) when he decides he's worth a lot more than that - holdout. Even though he was 34 years old, he felt he was worth another $2mil a year, which is what the elite WRs were making.

"It's pretty simple. I want a new deal and the Bucs don't want to pay me. I'm a Pro Bowl receiver, so basically we might as well go our separate ways...Trade me or release me. Yeah, why not? They don't want me back there, so it's time to move on."

Tampa Bay GM, Bruce Allen, was having no part of it stating that McCardell was one of the highest paid 34 year-old WRs in the league, and he has 2 years left of that contract to honor.Keenan skipped training camp as a result, and the Bucs put him on the inactive list. He was later traded to the Chargers for 3rd and 6th round picks. To make matters worse, the Bucs won a grievance and got $1.5mil back from McCardell. HOLDOUT FAIL. Haynesworth of course did his homework and plans to attend training camp to avoid such paybacks, but it's not going to be a smooth sailing.

The moral of the story is: Bruce isn't bluffing.

"Keenan, obviously, made a decision a long time ago that he wasn't going to be happy with the economics of his contract,'' General Manager Bruce Allen said during an afternoon news conference. "It was a good trade for the Buccaneers, only because of the players we have that are performing for us. Time for us to move on. We're looking forward to the future.''

Both Shanahan and Allen have iterated time after time they only deal with players who are there. I really find it hard to imagine they let Albert just walk back into camp like nothing happened. So, it looks like Albert is in for miserable ride. I bet the coaches are going to make him run all over the place in that glorious, DC humidity to the point he literally just site. As for McCardell, he had a horrible first year in San Diego and only managed one solid year the rest of his career. Point - Allen.

 

[fatness]

Keenan skipped training camp as a result, and the Bucs put him on the inactive list. He was later traded to the Chargers for 3rd and 6th round picks. To make matters worse, the Bucs won a grievance and got $1.5mil back from McCardell.

So Allen was smart enough to trade the guy, instead of just sending him home until he agreed to give back some money.

 

[dgreen]

Keenan skipped training camp as a result, and the Bucs put him on the inactive list. He was later traded to the Chargers for 3rd and 6th round picks. To make matters worse, the Bucs won a grievance and got $1.5mil back from McCardell.

So Allen was smart enough to trade the guy, instead of just sending him home until he agreed to give back some money.

They apparently got a pretty good offer for him. I doubt they could get a 3rd and 6th right now for Haynesworth. He'll be traded if they ever get a decent offer.Also, McCardell held out of training camp. I'm guessing that opens up doors for management. Haynesworth hasn't done that...yet.

 

[fatness]

Many old Redskin videos

 

[fatness]

Groups of Neil Olkewicz's photos.

1

2

3

 

[fatness]

Dan Snyder cited for excessive water use.

Where is he on Goodell's 'three strikes' list, anyway?

 

[fatness]

Remaining unrestricted free agents.

 

[thayman]

Dan Snyder cited for excessive water use.

Where is he on Goodell's 'three strikes' list, anyway?

Editor's Note: This article has been removed.

 

[fatness]

Dan Snyder cited for excessive water use.

Where is he on Goodell's 'three strikes' list, anyway?

Editor's Note: This article has been removed.

Ha. It's been removed from Google's cache and the Internet Archive as well. Good job, Dan.

 

[fatness]

Ken Houston tackling Walt Garrison, video included.

My favorite play in Redskin history. I didn't think there was any way he could possibly hold Garrison short of the goal line.

 

[fatness]

The Redskins are still over the hill.

The players on the Redskins’ 53-man roster entering the 2009 season averaged 28.02 years of age. That was about 10 days older than the average member of the second-oldest team in the league, the New Orleans Saints. This demonstrates that age isn’t necessarily a barrier to success, something we’ll look into later in this article.

Although Allen and Shanahan paid lip service to getting younger, the reality is that the Redskins are likely to remain among the league’s oldest teams. Going by the projected 2010 53-man roster prepared by CSNwashington’s Ryan O’Halloran, the Redskins will average 28.5 years of age when the season opener is played on Sept. 12, about six months older than last year’s edition.

It’s not simply a matter of the same players getting another year older, although that’s part of it. According to O’Halloran’s projection, the team will retain 29 players from last year’s opening-day roster, or 55 percent. That would leave 45 percent of the roster that could be populated by younger players. But the Redskins chose not to go in that direction. Of the 24 new players on the projected roster, 13 will be over 30 years old on opening day.

The increase in the team’s age is not just because of the addition of some veteran backups. The 22 players who started the 2009 season opener averaged 29.0 years of age. The 22 who are likely to start this year average 29.7 years. The increase in average age from 2009 to 2010 is spread out just about equally on both sides of the ball.

 

[buster c]

Many old Redskin videos

your best post ever

 

[dgreen]

Ken Houston tackling Walt Garrison, video included.

My favorite play in Redskin history. I didn't think there was any way he could possibly hold Garrison short of the goal line.

As a child of the Super Bowl years, I have the obvious favorite plays like Riggo's SB TD, Darrell Green's punt return in Chicago, and keeping the Vikings out of the end zone in the NFC Championship Game. One of my favorite moments (not a play) is the seat cushion game. Just an example of the amazing atmosphere that used to be an integral part of Redskins games.

 

[dgreen]

I get goose bumps watching the NFL Today 1982 clips.

 

[fatness]

Just an example of the amazing atmosphere that used to be an integral part of Redskins games.

It would be great if that atmosphere came back some day. An owner and fans that seemed to like each other. A very good front office. A very good coach. Few stars, lots of team effort, many players playing above their ability because they were really into being a part of a good scheme. I'm still hopeful.

 

[DCThunder]

Just an example of the amazing atmosphere that used to be an integral part of Redskins games.

It would be great if that atmosphere came back some day. An owner and fans that seemed to like each other. A very good front office. A very good coach. Few stars, lots of team effort, many players playing above their ability because they were really into being a part of a good scheme. I'm still hopeful.

A stadium that is more fan friendly would help too. Having the Redskins play a game back in RFK would demonstrate just how awful a stadium FedEx is.

 

[dgreen]

Just an example of the amazing atmosphere that used to be an integral part of Redskins games.

It would be great if that atmosphere came back some day. An owner and fans that seemed to like each other. A very good front office. A very good coach. Few stars, lots of team effort, many players playing above their ability because they were really into being a part of a good scheme. I'm still hopeful.

A stadium that is more fan friendly would help too. Having the Redskins play a game back in RFK would demonstrate just how awful a stadium FedEx is.

Winning makes things very fan friendly.