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

[Marvelous]

A trade of JC for Lynch and a 4th would be fair.

The Bills will never give that. The Redskins will be lucky to get a 4th for Campbell without any player, according to the league's perceived value for him right now.

If the most the Redskins can get is a 5th round pick for Campbell, they are better off keeping him as a backup, letting him go as a free agent next year, and then getting a 6th round comp pick in 2012 (assuming the compensation pick system is still in place then). Note that this year, the line border between a 5th and 6th round comp pick is aroun $4 - $4.5M per year. If someone signed Campbell as a starter, the Redskisn could get a 4th or 5th round pick.The main point, if you can only get a 5th for Campbell, you really are not gaining that much.

 

[burgundy and gold]

A trade of JC for Lynch and a 4th would be fair.

The Bills will never give that. The Redskins will be lucky to get a 4th for Campbell without any player, according to the league's perceived value for him right now.

From what I've been reading this morning, a 3rd is still a possibility or maybe a 4th plus a conditional 2011 pick. But I think a Lynch swap is a win-win for both teams.

 

[dgreen]

Keim on drafting an OT:

Don't think twice, pick a tackle

The Redskins really didn't need another reason to pick a tackle in next week's draft. Just in case they need a reminder, we offer them this as evidence: the game film. Put it on and they'll do the right thing, which is pick an offensive tackle at No. 4.

However, if they really want more proof as to why it's important, well, we're kind enough to provide that for them.

A while back, one NFL general manager said the single biggest mistake teams make is reaching for big guys -- as in, offensive and defensive linemen. The Redskins learned this years ago, trading up in the second round to land Andre Johnson, arguably their worst-ever draft choice. It was obvious from the first time he suited up in camp that he couldn't play. But he played left tackle so ... he went in the second round.

But ESPN's Mike Sando came up with an interesting stat. Between 2000-09, tackles who made three or more Pro Bowls were picked, on average, around third overall. Quarterbacks of that stature, by comparison, were picked on average around 77th overall. Running backs were closest to tackles at 10th.

By the way, the average spot for a tackle with no Pro Bowl appearances was 134th.

Tackles picked between 2000-08 in the top 10 mostly featured success stories (three were picked in the top 10 last year; they combined for 19 starts and the jury is still out). Of the 11, five became Pro Bowlers, including recently-retired Redskin Chris Samuels. The other four? Bryant McKinnie (a turd of a teammate), D'Brickashaw Ferguson, Joe Thomas, Jake Long and Jordan Gross. A sixth, Levi Brown, was an alternate this past year, his second in the league. And a seventh, Leonard Davis, was switched to guard where he has become a Pro Bowler.

Heck, even Levi Jones, another top-10 guy, was a solid left tackle for Cincinnati before injuries slowed him. And we saw first-hand just how much those injuries had changed him this past fall. We won't mention Mike Williams' time at tackle.

But just in case the Redskins have any desire to look elsewhere with that first pick, they need to think twice. Then make the smart choice.

 

[burgundy and gold]

A trade of JC for Lynch and a 4th would be fair.

The Bills will never give that. The Redskins will be lucky to get a 4th for Campbell without any player, according to the league's perceived value for him right now.

If the most the Redskins can get is a 5th round pick for Campbell, they are better off keeping him as a backup, letting him go as a free agent next year, and then getting a 6th round comp pick in 2012 (assuming the compensation pick system is still in place then). Note that this year, the line border between a 5th and 6th round comp pick is aroun $4 - $4.5M per year. If someone signed Campbell as a starter, the Redskisn could get a 4th or 5th round pick.The main point, if you can only get a 5th for Campbell, you really are not gaining that much.

Well how certain are you that it would not end up being a 7th round comp. pick? I mean we have brought in like 4 or 5 free agents already this off-season. I think getting a 5th in this years draft for JC would be horrible but I'd take it and let the guy move on rather than go your route. It seems like there is enough demand for QBs out there to get at least a 4th though.

 

[fatness]

Part 2 of the long article on Haynesworth

Haynesworth explained why he had such difficulties last season and how having Haslett will help him dramatically.

“When I started saying that stuff, back in the early hours of the first day free agency, they were saying ‘We’re going to do this, were going to be just like the Titans. We just want to let you lose, just dominate, you know, just go.’ Well, we get to the season and it’s just like he basically wasn’t doing that. When you put me in a structured defense, where I just have to sit there the whole time getting double and triple teamed, it made it very hard for me to succeed. I thought you were going to be creative and move me around. They didn’t really do that so that’s why my frustrations came out towards the end of the season. I talked to Jim Haslett and he plans on using me like they did with the Titans. He’s talked to a couple of Titans coaches and former Titans coaches and that’s what he said he’s planning on doing. Just kind of letting me loose and letting me play the game.”

Of course, with new coordinators come new changes in how the game is played and Haslett is no different. The type of defense Haslett employs is a 3-4 defense, a defense Haynesworth is not familiar with at all, yet he is open to it looks forward to playing it.

“At first I was a little iffy to it because I’ve never played in the 3-4. I don’t have a clue to how it’s really played. But then I talked to him a little bit and he plans on just playing me in the middle a little bit and at end. I guess I’ll just move around and just wreak havoc; so as long as we’re doing that and I’m not just at one position, I’m fine, I’m fine with it.”

There is no way the Redskins will just park Haynesworth at nose tackle all season. They're just ticked that he's treating voluntary workouts as voluntary, and are playing up the supposed conflict over his defensive position to try to get him to report. Pretty childish, really.

 

[fatness]

Rich Tandler article on Trent Williams and Brian Baluga.

The conventional wisdom says that the Washington Redskins will take offensive tackle Russell Okung with the fourth pick in the NFL draft. Before we outfit Okung with a burgundy jersey with the number 76 (his number at Oklahoma State), however, we need to look at a couple of other possibilities.

One is that Detroit will snag Okung with the second overall selection. There have been rumblings that the Lions have an eye on upgrading the left tackle position, and that they will go after Okung to replace the 32-year-old Jeff Backus.

There also is the possibility that the Redskins will trade back a few spots in order to replenish their supply of draft picks. They currently have four picks, and moving back a few spots could net them a couple of middle-round picks. Such a move would likely cost them the opportunity to select Okung, who probably won’t get past both Kansas City at five and Seattle with the sixth pick.

If Okung is off the board when the Redskins pick for whatever reason, that doesn’t mean that they are out of luck when it comes to filling their gaping hole at left tackle. There should be two potential consolation prizes available to Washington.

Short version: Williams sounds better.

 

[Dexter Manley]

Rich Tandler article on Trent Williams and Brian Baluga.

The conventional wisdom says that the Washington Redskins will take offensive tackle Russell Okung with the fourth pick in the NFL draft. Before we outfit Okung with a burgundy jersey with the number 76 (his number at Oklahoma State), however, we need to look at a couple of other possibilities.

One is that Detroit will snag Okung with the second overall selection. There have been rumblings that the Lions have an eye on upgrading the left tackle position, and that they will go after Okung to replace the 32-year-old Jeff Backus.

There also is the possibility that the Redskins will trade back a few spots in order to replenish their supply of draft picks. They currently have four picks, and moving back a few spots could net them a couple of middle-round picks. Such a move would likely cost them the opportunity to select Okung, who probably won’t get past both Kansas City at five and Seattle with the sixth pick.

If Okung is off the board when the Redskins pick for whatever reason, that doesn’t mean that they are out of luck when it comes to filling their gaping hole at left tackle. There should be two potential consolation prizes available to Washington.

Short version: Williams sounds better.

I disagree. Williams really struggled at LT in the early season games I saw OU play last season. I know he improved as the season went on, but I'm not sure he's going to be a quality starting LT at the next level. I think he eventually ends up at RT.The Redskins better not get cute here. Okung is clearly the best LT in the draft, imo. It should be an easy decision unless they get a great offer to trade down.

 

[Dexter Manley]

John Clayton addresses the Redskins in his latest mailbag:

Jimmy Clausen's pro day last Friday might have settled questions about whether he's a top-10 prospect.

Clausen threw well enough to be a top-10 pick, but figuring out where he'll go means figuring out how much appeal Redskins QB Jason Campbell has on the trade market.

Any questions?

Have a question for John Clayton? Connect with him here.

Campbell went from being the Redskins' starter to a draft-day trade candidate when the Redskins acquired Donovan McNabb. To help the trade process, Campbell signed his one-year restricted free-agent tender on Monday to help make a trade happen.

Campbell has two main hopes -- Oakland or Buffalo -- although he'd prefer if something could be done to get him to Carolina. Unfortunately for him, the Panthers don't appear to be interested. From the Redskins' standpoint, coach Mike Shanahan met with Campbell and was honest. Shanahan told Campbell he would try to accommodate him in a trade that benefits both parties. He gave Campbell the ability to shop around, too.

The timing of the McNabb deal held back any quick solution for Campbell. You can see how this is going to go. Campbell will watch the Clausen situation closely. If the Bills take Clausen at No. 9, Campbell will likely have to wait until Saturday, April 24, with hopes that the Redskins deal him to the Raiders as part of a draft-day trade.

The Bills, meanwhile, could factor Campbell's availability into what they do at quarterback. The cost of Campbell won't be more than a lower-round pick, a bargain for a starting quarterback. That could give the Bills the luxury of taking a Colt McCoy or a Tim Tebow and still getting Campbell as a starting quarterback to buy time for their future QB's development.

Still, odds favor Campbell ending up in Oakland, where he could work with new offensive coordinator Hue Jackson.

He thinks McNabb will add 5 or 6 points per game for the offense:

Q: Many analysts, including yourself, deem the Redskins an instant playoff contender because of the arrival of McNabb, often citing Mike Shanahan's reliance on the running game as a benefit to McNabb's game and the probability of McNabb bringing out the potential in his young pass-catchers. The current state of the offensive line indicates quite the opposite. If the line performs close to what it did last year, McNabb will get injured, the over-the-hill gang at running back will have nowhere to run, and the receivers won't have to time to get open. Do they really consider a rookie left tackle, Mike Williams at guard and Stephon Heyer at right tackle as legitimate starters?

Henry in Largo, Md.

A: The beauty of the McNabb trade is that it gives the Redskins the ability to draft Russell Okung to be their left tackle. Sure, there will an adjustment using a rookie left tackle, but there was an adjustment for McNabb last season when Jason Peters came over from Buffalo in a trade. McNabb is used to getting sacked 35 to 40 times a year. What makes life nice for McNabb in Washington is that Shanahan will try to use more running plays to take some pressure off of him. The Redskins aren't ready to go from 4-12 to a Super Bowl contender, but they have clearly moved into the playoff mix. McNabb should add five or six points a game to the offense. The Redskins will run the ball better. McNabb will help the offensive line if he gets rid of the ball quickly. I still can't believe the Eagles did this willingly, but they did.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...&id=5077455

 

[Dexter Manley]

Football Outsiders doesn't think McNabb will improve the team very much by himself.

Marino and McNabb have something in common

April, 13, 2010 Apr 139:55AM ETEmail Print Share By Matt MosleyAnd no, I'm not talking about their lack of a Super Bowl ring. Soon after the Eagles sent Donovan McNabb to the Redskins for a second-round draft pick in 2010 and a potential third-rounder in 2011, the folks at Football Outsiders broke out their calculators and went to work.

Aaron Schatz, the patron saint of FO's similarity scores system, compared McNabb's past three seasons to the three-year spans of quarterbacks who put up similar numbers. Dan Marino's 1990-92 seasons quickly caught Schatz's attention. And Archie Manning, Brett Favre, Phil Simms and Jim Kelly were also in the mix. This information is so privileged that we make you pay (a reasonable amount) for it via Insider status. But here's an excerpt from Schatz's fascinating study, which was published April 5:

When you look at their numbers, you wonder whether McNabb will give the Redskins that much more than they got from Jason Campbell," writes Schatz. "Let's imagine McNabb's 2010 season will look like the average performance of those 10 similar players in the season following the three-year span listed above. Those players averaged 13 games, primarily because of injuries, but we prorated the average to 16 games. We then compared these expected numbers to Campbell's stats in 2009.

The McNabb comparables ended up with a better touchdown-interception ratio (22-to-14, compared to Campbell's 20-to-15); the yardage (3,411 for the McNabb comparables to 3,618 for Campbell) and completion percentage (60.8 for McNabb comparables, 64.5 for Campbell) don't match what Campbell did this past season. Yes, McNabb averaged more than 8 yards per attempt this past season, but that was a yard more than what he averaged in 2007 or 2008, and he doesn't get to bring DeSean Jackson with him to Washington.

Of course, Campbell had the lowest average per attempt in the league in '09, in part, because he was playing behind an inferior offensive line that forced him to unload the ball early. But FO's research seems to indicate that McNabb's presence alone won't lift the Redskins into the playoff conversation.

In '09, he was surrounded by a talented receiving corps and he played behind a decent offensive line. Perhaps Mike Shanahan's commitment to the running game will take pressure off McNabb, but I'm not sure this will go smoothly.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/...thing-in-common

 

[burgundy and gold]

Rich Tandler article on Trent Williams and Brian Baluga.

The conventional wisdom says that the Washington Redskins will take offensive tackle Russell Okung with the fourth pick in the NFL draft. Before we outfit Okung with a burgundy jersey with the number 76 (his number at Oklahoma State), however, we need to look at a couple of other possibilities. One is that Detroit will snag Okung with the second overall selection. There have been rumblings that the Lions have an eye on upgrading the left tackle position, and that they will go after Okung to replace the 32-year-old Jeff Backus.There also is the possibility that the Redskins will trade back a few spots in order to replenish their supply of draft picks. They currently have four picks, and moving back a few spots could net them a couple of middle-round picks. Such a move would likely cost them the opportunity to select Okung, who probably won’t get past both Kansas City at five and Seattle with the sixth pick. If Okung is off the board when the Redskins pick for whatever reason, that doesn’t mean that they are out of luck when it comes to filling their gaping hole at left tackle. There should be two potential consolation prizes available to Washington.

Short version: Williams sounds better.

I disagree. Williams really struggled at LT in the early season games I saw OU play last season. I know he improved as the season went on, but I'm not sure he's going to be a quality starting LT at the next level. I think he eventually ends up at RT.The Redskins better not get cute here. Okung is clearly the best LT in the draft, imo. It should be an easy decision unless they get a great offer to trade down.

yea I think you're right, they can't play around with this. Okung appears to be the real deal, Williams has some question marks, and Bulaga seems like a great fit at RT but can he pass-block well enough to man the left side? Then you gotta think about Andre Davis and Bruce Campbell too ( in case we get a great trade offer ). Say Buffalo or Jacksonville want to trade up, we could get either the 1.09 or 1.10 along with a high 2nd rounder. I think you take that and risk missing out on all 3 of the top tackles and settle for maybe Bruce Campbell at worst. A high 2nd might get you your qb of the future or a very nice defensive guy or whatever.

 

[fatness]

John Clayton addresses the Redskins in his latest mailbag:

A: The beauty of the McNabb trade is that it gives the Redskins the ability to draft Russell Okung to be their left tackle. Sure, there will an adjustment using a rookie left tackle, but there was an adjustment for McNabb last season when Jason Peters came over from Buffalo in a trade. McNabb is used to getting sacked 35 to 40 times a year. What makes life nice for McNabb in Washington is that Shanahan will try to use more running plays to take some pressure off of him. The Redskins aren't ready to go from 4-12 to a Super Bowl contender, but they have clearly moved into the playoff mix. McNabb should add five or six points a game to the offense. The Redskins will run the ball better. McNabb will help the offensive line if he gets rid of the ball quickly. I still can't believe the Eagles did this willingly, but they did.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...&id=5077455

John Clayton is way off base and obviously didn't pay much attention to the Redskins last year. If he had, he'd know that one guy isn't going to fix the offensive line, no matter how good that guy is.

 

[dgreen]

John Clayton addresses the Redskins in his latest mailbag:

A: The beauty of the McNabb trade is that it gives the Redskins the ability to draft Russell Okung to be their left tackle. Sure, there will an adjustment using a rookie left tackle, but there was an adjustment for McNabb last season when Jason Peters came over from Buffalo in a trade. McNabb is used to getting sacked 35 to 40 times a year. What makes life nice for McNabb in Washington is that Shanahan will try to use more running plays to take some pressure off of him. The Redskins aren't ready to go from 4-12 to a Super Bowl contender, but they have clearly moved into the playoff mix. McNabb should add five or six points a game to the offense. The Redskins will run the ball better. McNabb will help the offensive line if he gets rid of the ball quickly. I still can't believe the Eagles did this willingly, but they did.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...&id=5077455

John Clayton is way off base and obviously didn't pay much attention to the Redskins last year. If he had, he'd know that one guy isn't going to fix the offensive line, no matter how good that guy is.

But I also think we tend to make things out to be worse than it really was because we're basing our view of the line on how it all ended. It wasn't a good OL at the beginning of the year with Samuels, but it also wasn't nearly as horrible as it ended up. I think if they can replace both tackles with decent-to-good players, the starting unit won't be in horrible shape. It will then come down to depth, which is ultimately what killed the line last year. I don't see how they create good depth in just one offseason, but I think they can build a not-too-sucky starting unit.And, as I've said many times, I think the improvement in the coaching staff can hide deficiencies. Zorn and that offensive staff had a "We call plays and they have to execute" philosophy, seemingly ignoring what the players' abilities were. From what I've read, Shanahan will not do that. He's get more production out of the same talent.

 

[Sidewinder16]

Of course, with new coordinators come new changes in how the game is played and Haslett is no different. The type of defense Haslett employs is a 3-4 defense, a defense Haynesworth is not familiar with at all, yet he is open to it looks forward to playing it.

“At first I was a little iffy to it because I’ve never played in the 3-4. I don’t have a clue to how it’s really played. But then I talked to him a little bit and he plans on just playing me in the middle a little bit and at end. I guess I’ll just move around and just wreak havoc; so as long as we’re doing that and I’m not just at one position, I’m fine, I’m fine with it.”

There is no way the Redskins will just park Haynesworth at nose tackle all season. They're just ticked that he's treating voluntary workouts as voluntary, and are playing up the supposed conflict over his defensive position to try to get him to report. Pretty childish, really.

I'm not seeing how it's childish, even if they are pushing a fictional conflict, as you suggest.Haynesworth has now publicly admitted that he has no clue how to play in a 3-4, and he's actively avoiding being with the team to learn the new defense and his new position(s). If I was the head coach I would be absolutely livid. This guy is supposed to be the defense's premier talent, the anchor and playmaker that basically drives the rest of the D, and he can't even bother to learn the new system!? How is that not sabotaging this new start the team is trying to make before it even starts?

It seems to me that Shanahan has been going to great lengths to give a "

" appearance amidst the turmoil.

 

[burgundy and gold]

Of course, with new coordinators come new changes in how the game is played and Haslett is no different. The type of defense Haslett employs is a 3-4 defense, a defense Haynesworth is not familiar with at all, yet he is open to it looks forward to playing it.

“At first I was a little iffy to it because I’ve never played in the 3-4. I don’t have a clue to how it’s really played. But then I talked to him a little bit and he plans on just playing me in the middle a little bit and at end. I guess I’ll just move around and just wreak havoc; so as long as we’re doing that and I’m not just at one position, I’m fine, I’m fine with it.”

There is no way the Redskins will just park Haynesworth at nose tackle all season. They're just ticked that he's treating voluntary workouts as voluntary, and are playing up the supposed conflict over his defensive position to try to get him to report. Pretty childish, really.

I'm not seeing how it's childish, even if they are pushing a fictional conflict, as you suggest.Haynesworth has now publicly admitted that he has no clue how to play in a 3-4, and he's actively avoiding being with the team to learn the new defense and his new position(s). If I was the head coach I would be absolutely livid. This guy is supposed to be the defense's premier talent, the anchor and playmaker that basically drives the rest of the D, and he can't even bother to learn the new system!? How is that not sabotaging this new start the team is trying to make before it even starts?It seems to me that Shanahan has been going to great lengths to give a "

While it would have been nice for Al to have shown the solidarity that, I believe, the rest of the team did and participate in the work outs, I think that he's well within his rights to make a stand against not only Shanahan but against anyone and everyone who would pretty much threaten and force guys to participate in voluntary team activities thereby making them mandatory. If my boss told me that my days off weren't really my days off or if the company promised everybody Christmas day off but then told us all privately that we better show up or else we're fired (he just want to appear to comply with company policy), somebody would have to stand up to the boss. Who's in a better position than Al to stand up for the players and say no you can't force us to do whatever you want. He's in a unique position and knows that regardless of the outcome he will be able to play for some NFL team this season and he will be well recieved.

 

[dgreen]

Of course, with new coordinators come new changes in how the game is played and Haslett is no different. The type of defense Haslett employs is a 3-4 defense, a defense Haynesworth is not familiar with at all, yet he is open to it looks forward to playing it.

“At first I was a little iffy to it because I’ve never played in the 3-4. I don’t have a clue to how it’s really played. But then I talked to him a little bit and he plans on just playing me in the middle a little bit and at end. I guess I’ll just move around and just wreak havoc; so as long as we’re doing that and I’m not just at one position, I’m fine, I’m fine with it.”

There is no way the Redskins will just park Haynesworth at nose tackle all season. They're just ticked that he's treating voluntary workouts as voluntary, and are playing up the supposed conflict over his defensive position to try to get him to report. Pretty childish, really.

I'm not seeing how it's childish, even if they are pushing a fictional conflict, as you suggest.Haynesworth has now publicly admitted that he has no clue how to play in a 3-4, and he's actively avoiding being with the team to learn the new defense and his new position(s). If I was the head coach I would be absolutely livid. This guy is supposed to be the defense's premier talent, the anchor and playmaker that basically drives the rest of the D, and he can't even bother to learn the new system!? How is that not sabotaging this new start the team is trying to make before it even starts?It seems to me that Shanahan has been going to great lengths to give a "

at suggesting he's making some stand against forced labor.

 

[dhockster]

Football Outsiders doesn't think McNabb will improve the team very much by himself.

Marino and McNabb have something in common

April, 13, 2010 Apr 139:55AM ETEmail Print Share By Matt MosleyAnd no, I'm not talking about their lack of a Super Bowl ring. Soon after the Eagles sent Donovan McNabb to the Redskins for a second-round draft pick in 2010 and a potential third-rounder in 2011, the folks at Football Outsiders broke out their calculators and went to work.

Aaron Schatz, the patron saint of FO's similarity scores system, compared McNabb's past three seasons to the three-year spans of quarterbacks who put up similar numbers. Dan Marino's 1990-92 seasons quickly caught Schatz's attention. And Archie Manning, Brett Favre, Phil Simms and Jim Kelly were also in the mix. This information is so privileged that we make you pay (a reasonable amount) for it via Insider status. But here's an excerpt from Schatz's fascinating study, which was published April 5:

When you look at their numbers, you wonder whether McNabb will give the Redskins that much more than they got from Jason Campbell," writes Schatz. "Let's imagine McNabb's 2010 season will look like the average performance of those 10 similar players in the season following the three-year span listed above. Those players averaged 13 games, primarily because of injuries, but we prorated the average to 16 games. We then compared these expected numbers to Campbell's stats in 2009.

The McNabb comparables ended up with a better touchdown-interception ratio (22-to-14, compared to Campbell's 20-to-15); the yardage (3,411 for the McNabb comparables to 3,618 for Campbell) and completion percentage (60.8 for McNabb comparables, 64.5 for Campbell) don't match what Campbell did this past season. Yes, McNabb averaged more than 8 yards per attempt this past season, but that was a yard more than what he averaged in 2007 or 2008, and he doesn't get to bring DeSean Jackson with him to Washington.

Of course, Campbell had the lowest average per attempt in the league in '09, in part, because he was playing behind an inferior offensive line that forced him to unload the ball early. But FO's research seems to indicate that McNabb's presence alone won't lift the Redskins into the playoff conversation.

In '09, he was surrounded by a talented receiving corps and he played behind a decent offensive line. Perhaps Mike Shanahan's commitment to the running game will take pressure off McNabb, but I'm not sure this will go smoothly.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/...thing-in-common

I think the biggest question with McNabb is will he be a better QB in a more balanced run/pass offense? I have always suspected that Andy Reid only passed so much because he felt he had to to get Donovan into a rhythm. If McNabb ends up putting up great numbers in a balanced offense, then Reid will be exposed for being too pass happy in his play calling. If McNabb struggles throwing the ball when he has less opportunities, and Reid runs a successful, more balanced offense with Kolb, then we will get some insight as to why the Eagles were willing to trade McNabb, and trade him to a divisional opponent. This year, more than any other I think, will show whether the Eagles are going to continue to play at or near the top of the NFC over the next five years, or whether they will cycle to the bottom like most teams after a successful era. Hand in hand with that will be whether Reid remains the Eagles coach for the long haul.

 

[fatness]

I'm not seeing how it's childish, even if they are pushing a fictional conflict, as you suggest.

Haynesworth has now publicly admitted that he has no clue how to play in a 3-4, and he's actively avoiding being with the team to learn the new defense and his new position(s). If I was the head coach I would be absolutely livid. This guy is supposed to be the defense's premier talent, the anchor and playmaker that basically drives the rest of the D, and he can't even bother to learn the new system!? How is that not sabotaging this new start the team is trying to make before it even starts?

It seems to me that Shanahan has been going to great lengths to give a "

Haynesworth has said he'll be at all required team activities and that he'll do whatever the coaching staff tells him to do. I don't see the problem with that. And I certainly don't think he'll have any problem learning and executing what they want from him in mandatory team sessions. The guy understands playing defense, he's an intelligent man.If a head coach is livid, then he better calm down and put the best interests of the team ahead of his own personal emotions. Shanahan can escalate this conflict or defuse it. Publicly he's staying calm, but who do you think is feeding all the "unnamed team sources" talk to the (information starved) DC sports reporters to whip up the pressure on Haynesworth? It sure isn't any of Shanahan's subordinates.

 

[fatness]

This is the other thing John Clayton said that makes me think he didn't watch the Redskins last year:

What makes life nice for McNabb in Washington is that Shanahan will try to use more running plays to take some pressure off of him.

With the terrible offensive line and 3 aging RB's, calling plenty of running plays is only going to work until the team is behind in the 2nd or 3rd quarter and needs to pass more to have a hope of winning.Obviously the play of the defense has something to do with this as well, because if they're holding the opponents' scoring down then running more can be done for more of the game by the Skins. But if they dump Haynesworth they're going to need McNabb to do plenty of passing.

 

[burgundy and gold]

While it would have been nice for Al to have shown the solidarity that, I believe, the rest of the team did and participate in the work outs, I think that he's well within his rights to make a stand against not only Shanahan but against anyone and everyone who would pretty much threaten and force guys to participate in voluntary team activities thereby making them mandatory. If my boss told me that my days off weren't really my days off or if the company promised everybody Christmas day off but then told us all privately that we better show up or else we're fired (he just want to appear to comply with company policy), somebody would have to stand up to the boss. Who's in a better position than Al to stand up for the players and say no you can't force us to do whatever you want. He's in a unique position and knows that regardless of the outcome he will be able to play for some NFL team this season and he will be well recieved.

at suggesting he's making some stand against forced labor.

I wouldn't exactly refer to it as labor, but I'd if someone referred to my job as labor as well. However my point still stands. If my companys policy dictated that working Christmas day was voluntary and my boss attempted to force me to come in with veiled threats of termination, I'd make a helluva stink about it. And I'm in a position to do so without worrying about being able to find another job if I actually was fired.

 

[DCThunder]

I've spent the last hour or so getting caught up on this thread. Man, I picked a bad week to be away from DC and in Florida on vacation. My only real source of news was a paragraph or two on the McNabb trade in the NY Post, and that mainly focused on a Jason Tuck interview about how much he respected McNabb and hoped that if he was traded, he'd go to an AFC team so Tuck wouldn't have to chase him around twice a year. Soo much for that...

 

[burgundy and gold]

if they dump Haynesworth they're going to need McNabb to do plenty of passing.

You're right. I beleive that losing Al will mean losing games this season. Now whether or not Shanahan solidifying his position of authority is of more importance to the future of the team ( not to mention the multiple draft picks the team should be getting in exchange for moving him ) is something to consider. I don't want to lose Al but above all else I want the Skins back on top therefore I'm not totally opposed to Shanahans dictatorial methods. But like any other coach making moves like this, the end better justify the means.

 

[dgreen]

While it would have been nice for Al to have shown the solidarity that, I believe, the rest of the team did and participate in the work outs, I think that he's well within his rights to make a stand against not only Shanahan but against anyone and everyone who would pretty much threaten and force guys to participate in voluntary team activities thereby making them mandatory. If my boss told me that my days off weren't really my days off or if the company promised everybody Christmas day off but then told us all privately that we better show up or else we're fired (he just want to appear to comply with company policy), somebody would have to stand up to the boss. Who's in a better position than Al to stand up for the players and say no you can't force us to do whatever you want. He's in a unique position and knows that regardless of the outcome he will be able to play for some NFL team this season and he will be well recieved.

at suggesting he's making some stand against forced labor.

I wouldn't exactly refer to it as labor, but I'd if someone referred to my job as labor as well. However my point still stands. If my companys policy dictated that working Christmas day was voluntary and my boss attempted to force me to come in with veiled threats of termination, I'd make a helluva stink about it. And I'm in a position to do so without worrying about being able to find another job if I actually was fired.

I understand what your point it is. My point is that your point isn't a very good one because that's not what Haynesworth is doing here.

 

[Sidewinder16]

Haynesworth has said he'll be at all required team activities and that he'll do whatever the coaching staff tells him to do. I don't see the problem with that. And I certainly don't think he'll have any problem learning and executing what they want from him in mandatory team sessions. The guy understands playing defense, he's an intelligent man.

The issue isn't whether Haynesworth is intelligent or what he is or isn't required to do by contract. It's that he's completely unwilling to do anything other than what he's "required" to do. It's really no different than Iverson's rant on practice.The vast majority of the Redskins' roster is working out together, going to meetings together and hitting the practice field together. That's how you develop and grow as a team. That's how you build a winning roster and a winning organization. You don't develop a team that wins by having your star players do the least amount of work that they can with their team mates.

If a head coach is livid, then he better calm down and put the best interests of the team ahead of his own personal emotions. Shanahan can escalate this conflict or defuse it.

IMO, what is in the best interest of the team is having a roster full of guys that want to win together. If you want to win together, then you need to practice together. Team chemistry is far more important to the success of a football team than is the talent of any individual player. At least, that's what a decade of Snyderatto has taught me.

Publicly he's staying calm, but who do you think is feeding all the "unnamed team sources" talk to the (information starved) DC sports reporters to whip up the pressure on Haynesworth? It sure isn't any of Shanahan's subordinates.

I'm a little slow today. Are you saying the "unnamed team sources" are Shanahan himself? That he personally calls up Jason Reid and says "Here, print this..."? If so, it's a little far fetched, IMO, but there's no way any of us can be certain either way. But even if he was doing something of the sort, I don't think it means all that much to me as I'm still not convinced this is a contrived conflict.

 

[Sidewinder16]

I wouldn't exactly refer to it as labor, but I'd if someone referred to my job as labor as well. However my point still stands. If my companys policy dictated that working Christmas day was voluntary and my boss attempted to force me to come in with veiled threats of termination, I'd make a helluva stink about it. And I'm in a position to do so without worrying about being able to find another job if I actually was fired.

I understand what your point it is. My point is that your point isn't a very good one because that's not what Haynesworth is doing here.

I gotta agree here. All your point really supports is that Haynesworth could care less about who he plays with/for, as long as he has a job (i.e. is getting paid).Personally, I've had enough of seeing that on the Redskins. It's getting to the point that I could care less if they were to draft Tebow and play him at NT. At least I'd know Tebow would play his guts out and play his hardest for the team.

 

[MikeApf]

Cerrato Joins ESPN Draft Team

We should read the P.R. statements that ESPN sends more closely, because it took Dan Steinberg of DC Sports Bog to notice a glorious item towards the bottom of Tuesday's release.

Former Redskins Executive VP and noted actor Vinny Cerrato will provide analysis for ESPN Radio during the draft alongside John Clayton and host Freddie Coleman.

"Cerrato is thrilled to be part of a draft in which he didn't trade away all his good picks for overpaid veterans," we wish someone said.

Charles Rogers will also provide on-site financial advice for incoming rookies.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...spn-draft-team/

Discuss among yourselves.

 

[Sebowski]

Of course, with new coordinators come new changes in how the game is played and Haslett is no different. The type of defense Haslett employs is a 3-4 defense, a defense Haynesworth is not familiar with at all, yet he is open to it looks forward to playing it.

“At first I was a little iffy to it because I’ve never played in the 3-4. I don’t have a clue to how it’s really played. But then I talked to him a little bit and he plans on just playing me in the middle a little bit and at end. I guess I’ll just move around and just wreak havoc; so as long as we’re doing that and I’m not just at one position, I’m fine, I’m fine with it.”

There is no way the Redskins will just park Haynesworth at nose tackle all season. They're just ticked that he's treating voluntary workouts as voluntary, and are playing up the supposed conflict over his defensive position to try to get him to report. Pretty childish, really.

I'm not seeing how it's childish, even if they are pushing a fictional conflict, as you suggest.Haynesworth has now publicly admitted that he has no clue how to play in a 3-4, and he's actively avoiding being with the team to learn the new defense and his new position(s). If I was the head coach I would be absolutely livid. This guy is supposed to be the defense's premier talent, the anchor and playmaker that basically drives the rest of the D, and he can't even bother to learn the new system!? How is that not sabotaging this new start the team is trying to make before it even starts?It seems to me that Shanahan has been going to great lengths to give a "

Lifting weights with the rest of the team in March won't matter come September. Leave Hanyeworth and his days off alone. Its not like he is sitting in his lazy boy eating cheeseburgers. He is working out with a personal trainer and is excited about getting back to being dominate. That is great news to me.

 

[Marvelous]

Of course, with new coordinators come new changes in how the game is played and Haslett is no different. The type of defense Haslett employs is a 3-4 defense, a defense Haynesworth is not familiar with at all, yet he is open to it looks forward to playing it.

“At first I was a little iffy to it because I’ve never played in the 3-4. I don’t have a clue to how it’s really played. But then I talked to him a little bit and he plans on just playing me in the middle a little bit and at end. I guess I’ll just move around and just wreak havoc; so as long as we’re doing that and I’m not just at one position, I’m fine, I’m fine with it.”

There is no way the Redskins will just park Haynesworth at nose tackle all season. They're just ticked that he's treating voluntary workouts as voluntary, and are playing up the supposed conflict over his defensive position to try to get him to report. Pretty childish, really.

I'm not seeing how it's childish, even if they are pushing a fictional conflict, as you suggest.Haynesworth has now publicly admitted that he has no clue how to play in a 3-4, and he's actively avoiding being with the team to learn the new defense and his new position(s). If I was the head coach I would be absolutely livid. This guy is supposed to be the defense's premier talent, the anchor and playmaker that basically drives the rest of the D, and he can't even bother to learn the new system!? How is that not sabotaging this new start the team is trying to make before it even starts?It seems to me that Shanahan has been going to great lengths to give a "

I guess Big Al is in a unusual position because most of the people in America go to the "forced" voluntary event to please our boss, make customers happy, and keep a visible profile within the company.

 

[Sebowski]

I want a 3rd for Campbell. Won't be happy with anything less.

I'd love to trade him and our 4th for a 2nd.

 

[Marvelous]

Of course, with new coordinators come new changes in how the game is played and Haslett is no different. The type of defense Haslett employs is a 3-4 defense, a defense Haynesworth is not familiar with at all, yet he is open to it looks forward to playing it.

“At first I was a little iffy to it because I’ve never played in the 3-4. I don’t have a clue to how it’s really played. But then I talked to him a little bit and he plans on just playing me in the middle a little bit and at end. I guess I’ll just move around and just wreak havoc; so as long as we’re doing that and I’m not just at one position, I’m fine, I’m fine with it.”

There is no way the Redskins will just park Haynesworth at nose tackle all season. They're just ticked that he's treating voluntary workouts as voluntary, and are playing up the supposed conflict over his defensive position to try to get him to report. Pretty childish, really.

I'm not seeing how it's childish, even if they are pushing a fictional conflict, as you suggest.Haynesworth has now publicly admitted that he has no clue how to play in a 3-4, and he's actively avoiding being with the team to learn the new defense and his new position(s). If I was the head coach I would be absolutely livid. This guy is supposed to be the defense's premier talent, the anchor and playmaker that basically drives the rest of the D, and he can't even bother to learn the new system!? How is that not sabotaging this new start the team is trying to make before it even starts?It seems to me that Shanahan has been going to great lengths to give a "

I believe there are also team meetings on what they are going to do this coming season, what role you will play and how to play it. Some of that could be good for someone who does not know how to play in a 3-4.

 

[burgundy and gold]

I want a 3rd for Campbell. Won't be happy with anything less. I'd love to trade him and our 4th for a 2nd.

 

[fatness]

The issue isn't whether Haynesworth is intelligent or what he is or isn't required to do by contract. It's that he's completely unwilling to do anything other than what he's "required" to do. It's really no different than Iverson's rant on practice.

It's completely different. Practices that Iverson was complaining about were mandatory.

The vast majority of the Redskins' roster is working out together, going to meetings together and hitting the practice field together. That's how you develop and grow as a team. That's how you build a winning roster and a winning organization. You don't develop a team that wins by having your star players do the least amount of work that they can with their team mates.

You win by putting the best players on the field and coaching them better than the other team does. It's pretty simple.

Team chemistry is far more important to the success of a football team than is the talent of any individual player. At least, that's what a decade of Snyderatto has taught me.

Heath Shuler was loyal. Chad Rinehart was loyal. Brandon Lloyd was not. What made the difference for each of them was that they stunk as players, not whether they were loyal team guys.

I'm a little slow today. Are you saying the "unnamed team sources" are Shanahan himself?

Yes. I'm saying he's making sure that information is being given to the local press (who are starved for information from the team, since much of it seems to go to national reporters and not local folks). And like hungry pups the local media folks run with it and even embellish the "Haynesworth better watch out for Shanahan" message that Shanahan wants to send (unofficially of course). Jason Reid's article about Jake Plummer is a good example of this. Put the best players on the field. Coach them the best. Beat the other team. That takes care of frivolous power issues. Haynesworth will be in practice when he's required to be, and he'll be creaming offensive linemen regularly like he did all last year in practice. And the other D-linemen will all be benefitting from his performance. It would be stupid to deprive the team of that. It's a team sport, not a "head guy's ego" sport.

 

[burgundy and gold]

While it would have been nice for Al to have shown the solidarity that, I believe, the rest of the team did and participate in the work outs, I think that he's well within his rights to make a stand against not only Shanahan but against anyone and everyone who would pretty much threaten and force guys to participate in voluntary team activities thereby making them mandatory. If my boss told me that my days off weren't really my days off or if the company promised everybody Christmas day off but then told us all privately that we better show up or else we're fired (he just want to appear to comply with company policy), somebody would have to stand up to the boss. Who's in a better position than Al to stand up for the players and say no you can't force us to do whatever you want. He's in a unique position and knows that regardless of the outcome he will be able to play for some NFL team this season and he will be well recieved.

at suggesting he's making some stand against forced labor.

I wouldn't exactly refer to it as labor, but I'd if someone referred to my job as labor as well. However my point still stands. If my companys policy dictated that working Christmas day was voluntary and my boss attempted to force me to come in with veiled threats of termination, I'd make a helluva stink about it. And I'm in a position to do so without worrying about being able to find another job if I actually was fired.

I understand what your point it is. My point is that your point isn't a very good one because that's not what Haynesworth is doing here.

IMO that is part of what Haynesworth is doing here. Of course that's not the reason he gave to the coach. But just like the coach didn't verbalize that the voluntary workouts were actually being considered mandatory, I don't think Haynesworth needs to articulate this aspect of his decision to stay away. To me it's understood. I mean just because he wants to partake in some sort of specialized individual training program he could still come here for a week or two here and there for these minicamps or whatever. He just doesn't want to. Maybe he doesn't believe in this new regime and maybe he wants out. Of course I'm speculating on this because I don't know this for a fact but then of course it's not like you can say that it's def. not the case. Certainly, more outlandish speculations have come thru this thread.

 

[Sebowski]

Part 2 of the long article on Haynesworth

Haynesworth explained why he had such difficulties last season and how having Haslett will help him dramatically.

“When I started saying that stuff, back in the early hours of the first day free agency, they were saying ‘We’re going to do this, were going to be just like the Titans. We just want to let you lose, just dominate, you know, just go.’ Well, we get to the season and it’s just like he basically wasn’t doing that. When you put me in a structured defense, where I just have to sit there the whole time getting double and triple teamed, it made it very hard for me to succeed. I thought you were going to be creative and move me around. They didn’t really do that so that’s why my frustrations came out towards the end of the season. I talked to Jim Haslett and he plans on using me like they did with the Titans. He’s talked to a couple of Titans coaches and former Titans coaches and that’s what he said he’s planning on doing. Just kind of letting me loose and letting me play the game.”

Of course, with new coordinators come new changes in how the game is played and Haslett is no different. The type of defense Haslett employs is a 3-4 defense, a defense Haynesworth is not familiar with at all, yet he is open to it looks forward to playing it.

“At first I was a little iffy to it because I’ve never played in the 3-4. I don’t have a clue to how it’s really played. But then I talked to him a little bit and he plans on just playing me in the middle a little bit and at end. I guess I’ll just move around and just wreak havoc; so as long as we’re doing that and I’m not just at one position, I’m fine, I’m fine with it.”

There is no way the Redskins will just park Haynesworth at nose tackle all season. They're just ticked that he's treating voluntary workouts as voluntary, and are playing up the supposed conflict over his defensive position to try to get him to report. Pretty childish, really.

More from that article Sidewinder needs to read

“I’m just going to be myself and keep doing what I do. I don’t care about, I mean, I do care about the money , I love money; as far as how it changes how I play, it doesn’t. People think that I’m just going to relax and be satisfied, but I tell people that’s not going to happen. The money is good, the money is great, whatever; but there are things that money can’t buy. Money can’t buy greatness. There are a lot of rich, wealthy people, but being great at a sport and being the best at what you do, there aren’t that many people that can say that. That’s what I’m going after, being the best defensive tackle in the NFL.”

...

“We’re normal people. Being on TV, people start to think your Superman or something like that. I’m a normal guy. I love to shop at Walmart, one of my favorite places to go. You know, they think you’re like a celebrity, a superstar, I kind of just see it as a job. Something I love to do, I mean you should love your job. I don’t really consider myself a celebrity or a superstar or anything like that.”

Through my conversation with Haynesworth, I realized he is not the man he is made out to be by most members of the media. He is an extremely caring individual, he is down-to-earth, very talented, unselfish and surprisingly modest. These wonderful attributes of a human being are greatly deceiving to those thinking his off-the-field kindness will translate to on-the-field weakness.

“I hate to lose. That’s one thing that makes me good. I just don’t feel another man can beat me one-on-one. So I refuse to accept failure.”

 

[fatness]

I believe there are also team meetings on what they are going to do this coming season, what role you will play and how to play it. Some of that could be good for someone who does not know how to play in a 3-4.

Yes, it could. However, missing the voluntary workouts and only attending the mandatory ones will not set Haynesworth back noticeably, and he'll grasp what he needs to and be performing just fine well before the regular season starts. He's an intelligent man, he's the best defensive tackle in the league, and that is not done just through brute physical force. He understands defensive play well enough to pick up anything he needs to quickly enough.If we get into mandatory practices and training camp and he's absent, that's another issue and might possibly affect his play during the season. But missing these voluntaries won't.

 

[fatness]

Comedy is not dead!

 

[TxBuckeye]

I guess Big Al is in a unusual position because most of the people in America go to the "forced" voluntary event to please our boss, make customers happy, and keep a visible profile within the company.

And for "slightly less" money to boot.

 

[burgundy and gold]

I beleive that losing Al will mean losing games this season. Now whether or not Shanahan solidifying his position of authority is of more importance to the future of the team ( not to mention the multiple draft picks the team should be getting in exchange for moving him ) is something to consider. I don't want to lose Al but above all else I want the Skins back on top therefore I'm not totally opposed to Shanahans dictatorial methods. But like any other coach making moves like this, the end better justify the means.

Sorry to bump my own post but really that's the bottom line here. I'd only add that if you believe in Shanahans methods of building a winner then you gotta back him in his stance on this. I mean even though I think the Eagles were crazy to let McNabb go, I still understand their reasoning and respect the philosophy behind the move.

 

[burgundy and gold]

I guess Big Al is in a unusual position because most of the people in America go to the "forced" voluntary event to please our boss, make customers happy, and keep a visible profile within the company.

Oh, ok. I'll just take your word on that. NOT! What America do you live in? I'd say alot of people do, but not most. And furthermore I don't think all successful organizations are run the same way. There are successfully run franchises who don't dictate full participation in voluntary off-season team activities.

 

[Sidewinder16]

More from that article Sidewinder needs to read

I had already read the whole thing. It does nothing to change my opinion that having players that are insubordinate to the head coach's wishes is extremely detrimental to the future success of an NFL team.

 

[Marvelous]

Part 2 of the long article on Haynesworth

Haynesworth explained why he had such difficulties last season and how having Haslett will help him dramatically.

“When I started saying that stuff, back in the early hours of the first day free agency, they were saying ‘We’re going to do this, were going to be just like the Titans. We just want to let you lose, just dominate, you know, just go.’ Well, we get to the season and it’s just like he basically wasn’t doing that. When you put me in a structured defense, where I just have to sit there the whole time getting double and triple teamed, it made it very hard for me to succeed. I thought you were going to be creative and move me around. They didn’t really do that so that’s why my frustrations came out towards the end of the season. I talked to Jim Haslett and he plans on using me like they did with the Titans. He’s talked to a couple of Titans coaches and former Titans coaches and that’s what he said he’s planning on doing. Just kind of letting me loose and letting me play the game.”

Of course, with new coordinators come new changes in how the game is played and Haslett is no different. The type of defense Haslett employs is a 3-4 defense, a defense Haynesworth is not familiar with at all, yet he is open to it looks forward to playing it.

“At first I was a little iffy to it because I’ve never played in the 3-4. I don’t have a clue to how it’s really played. But then I talked to him a little bit and he plans on just playing me in the middle a little bit and at end. I guess I’ll just move around and just wreak havoc; so as long as we’re doing that and I’m not just at one position, I’m fine, I’m fine with it.”

There is no way the Redskins will just park Haynesworth at nose tackle all season. They're just ticked that he's treating voluntary workouts as voluntary, and are playing up the supposed conflict over his defensive position to try to get him to report. Pretty childish, really.

More from that article Sidewinder needs to read

“I’m just going to be myself and keep doing what I do. I don’t care about, I mean, I do care about the money , I love money; as far as how it changes how I play, it doesn’t. People think that I’m just going to relax and be satisfied, but I tell people that’s not going to happen. The money is good, the money is great, whatever; but there are things that money can’t buy. Money can’t buy greatness. There are a lot of rich, wealthy people, but being great at a sport and being the best at what you do, there aren’t that many people that can say that. That’s what I’m going after, being the best defensive tackle in the NFL.”

...

“We’re normal people. Being on TV, people start to think your Superman or something like that. I’m a normal guy. I love to shop at Walmart, one of my favorite places to go. You know, they think you’re like a celebrity, a superstar, I kind of just see it as a job. Something I love to do, I mean you should love your job. I don’t really consider myself a celebrity or a superstar or anything like that.”

Through my conversation with Haynesworth, I realized he is not the man he is made out to be by most members of the media. He is an extremely caring individual, he is down-to-earth, very talented, unselfish and surprisingly modest. These wonderful attributes of a human being are greatly deceiving to those thinking his off-the-field kindness will translate to on-the-field weakness.

“I hate to lose. That’s one thing that makes me good. I just don’t feel another man can beat me one-on-one. So I refuse to accept failure.”

For the most part, in any direct quote from Haynesworth, he says the right things. There does not appear to be hidden messages in there either.

 

[Bizkiteer]

I guess Big Al is in a unusual position because most of the people in America go to the "forced" voluntary event to please our boss, make customers happy, and keep a visible profile within the company.

Oh, ok. I'll just take your word on that. NOT! What America do you live in? I'd say alot of people do, but not most. And furthermore I don't think all successful organizations are run the same way. There are successfully run franchises who don't dictate full participation in voluntary off-season team activities.

Uhhh, if you work in a legitimate company in Corporate America...you show up. Unless you are entry level, then you are a guppy in an ocean. No, there is nothing written or truly said, but anyone who is anyone in any business knows this.

 

[Marvelous]

I guess Big Al is in a unusual position because most of the people in America go to the "forced" voluntary event to please our boss, make customers happy, and keep a visible profile within the company.

Oh, ok. I'll just take your word on that. NOT! What America do you live in? I'd say alot of people do, but not most. And furthermore I don't think all successful organizations are run the same way. There are successfully run franchises who don't dictate full participation in voluntary off-season team activities.

Taking it another step, I know a few higher ups. Their wives talk about how they need to go these big fancy dinners and be the wife. They don't get paid for it. But it is part of their husband's job. Note: they say after you have been to a few, they are a big drag and a lot of work and hassle. We all do stuff like this all the time.

 

[Marvelous]

More from that article Sidewinder needs to read

I had already read the whole thing. It does nothing to change my opinion that having players that are insubordinate to the head coach's wishes is extremely detrimental to the future success of an NFL team.

The reality is: There is a limit to what Shanahan can do because the CBA directly says the workouts are voluntary. Sure, Haynesworth can be traded or cut, but that really does not hurt Haynesworth. From the quotes I have read, Hayneworth said he will attend every mandatory function, play whatever position the coaches tell him, and show up in shape.I am hoping that most of the talk is discord between Shanahan and Haynesworth is media generated. And if Haynesworth shows for the first mandatory mini-camp in shape, a lot of the talk will die down. Have I fallen into being the overly optimistic fan during the off season?

 

[fatness]

Top offensive tackes in the draft with some analysis of each.

 

[fatness]

Have I fallen into being the overly optimistic fan during the off season?

It's hard to tell, since we have no local history of Shanahan to go on. My guess is that they've already got offers for Haynesworth, and they don't like those offers and see that the team would not be gaining enough to offset his loss. When the draft starts they may get a higher offer from another team, or they may cave and take a too-low offer, or they may keep him. The pressure of the draft clock makes a lot of things happen. If they trade him and are not getting a high enough draft pick to take a quality nose tackle, I'm going to say they weakened the team needlessly. If McNabb is worth 4-5 points/game to the offense, I think Haynesworth is worth an equivalent amount to the defense.

 

[burgundy and gold]

I guess Big Al is in a unusual position because most of the people in America go to the "forced" voluntary event to please our boss, make customers happy, and keep a visible profile within the company.

Oh, ok. I'll just take your word on that. NOT! What America do you live in? I'd say alot of people do, but not most. And furthermore I don't think all successful organizations are run the same way. There are successfully run franchises who don't dictate full participation in voluntary off-season team activities.

Uhhh, if you work in a legitimate company in Corporate America...you show up. Unless you are entry level, then you are a guppy in an ocean. No, there is nothing written or truly said, but anyone who is anyone in any business knows this.

Oh, ok. I guess I'm just a "nobody" working for a company that isn't "legitimate" just because my viewpoint doesn't chime with yours Mr. President sir. Thanks alot. And by the way I say you're wrong dude. I'm of the opinion that there is more impetus on an entry level worker (not a guppy) to show at company organized non-essential events. For example, an attorney with a high stake in a firm is not likely to be dismissed for anything but the most prolonged of absences whereas a clerk would not want to be seen as anything but a team player for fear of an arbitrary dismissal.

 

[burgundy and gold]

More from that article Sidewinder needs to read

:XI had already read the whole thing. It does nothing to change my opinion that having players that are insubordinate to the head coach's wishes is extremely detrimental to the future success of an NFL team.

The reality is: There is a limit to what Shanahan can do because the CBA directly says the workouts are voluntary. Sure, Haynesworth can be traded or cut, but that really does not hurt Haynesworth. From the quotes I have read, Hayneworth said he will attend every mandatory function, play whatever position the coaches tell him, and show up in shape.I am hoping that most of the talk is discord between Shanahan and Haynesworth is media generated. And if Haynesworth shows for the first mandatory mini-camp in shape, a lot of the talk will die down. Have I fallen into being the overly optimistic fan during the off season?

I don't think you're being overly optimistic.

 

[fatness]

Uhhh, if you work in a legitimate company in Corporate America...you show up.

What does that even mean? That if someone doesn't attend a voluntary work function they don't have a legitimate job?Wow. I think you might be out of touch with what most jobs in the country are like.

 

[buster c]

Uhhh, if you work in a legitimate company in Corporate America...you show up.

What does that even mean? That if someone doesn't attend a voluntary work function they don't have a legitimate job?Wow. I think you might be out of touch with what most jobs in the country are like.

I think what The Biz left unsaid was 'if you work in a legitimate company in Corporate America and you want to get ahead'you get that, right?

 

[thayman]

I guess Big Al is in a unusual position because most of the people in America go to the "forced" voluntary event to please our boss, make customers happy, and keep a visible profile within the company.

Oh, ok. I'll just take your word on that. NOT! What America do you live in? I'd say alot of people do, but not most. And furthermore I don't think all successful organizations are run the same way. There are successfully run franchises who don't dictate full participation in voluntary off-season team activities.

Uhhh, if you work in a legitimate company in Corporate America...you show up. Unless you are entry level, then you are a guppy in an ocean. No, there is nothing written or truly said, but anyone who is anyone in any business knows this.

Oh, ok. I guess I'm just a "nobody" working for a company that isn't "legitimate" just because my viewpoint doesn't chime with yours Mr. President sir. Thanks alot. And by the way I say you're wrong dude. I'm of the opinion that there is more impetus on an entry level worker (not a guppy) to show at company organized non-essential events. For example, an attorney with a high stake in a firm is not likely to be dismissed for anything but the most prolonged of absences whereas a clerk would not want to be seen as anything but a team player for fear of an arbitrary dismissal.

I've been a manager in the Hospitality Industry for about 10 years now, the higher up you are the more you should show up for "voluntary" days. It shows a good example.