Albert Haynesworth has no future with the Redskins

Aug. 14, 2010 - Landover, Maryland, United States of America - 13 August, 2010:Washington Redskins Defensive Lineman ALBERT HAYNESWORTH.

So now the Redskins have re-entered trade talks with the Titans for Albert Haynesworth.

Fantastic. The never ending offseason death ride continues.

I wonder if Mike Shanahan has the correct business hours for FedEx, because if he wanted to get rid of Hanyesworth so bad, he could have already shipped the mammoth defensive tackle out of town by now.

ESPN’s Chris Mortensen says there is no deal in place yet between the Skins and Titans, because Tennessee feels that Washington’s asking price of two draft picks is too high. Quite frankly, I don’t blame the Titans for not giving into the Redskins’ demands considering a) Haynesworth hasn’t cracked the starting lineup yet and b) Shanahan clearly wants nothing to do with him.

Why pay full price for something when the seller is willing to give the product away for less than what its worth? Washington can play hardball with Tennessee all it wants, but at the end of the day the Titans know that Shanahan doesn’t want Haynesworth on his roster, so all they have to do is show some patience and they’ll get the player they want for cheap.

The best thing for the Redskins would be to trade Haynesworth for whatever they can get, even if it doesn’t wind up being fair value in return. This was Dan Snyder’s fault for paying a player $100 million and ignoring all the signs that came with said player. If he had bothered to do his homework, he would have taken a pass just like most owners and built his team through the draft for once.

Nothing positive is going to come out of this Haynesoworth/Shanahan/Redskins fiasco, so Washington needs to cut its losses and move on.

Follow the Scores Report editors on Twitter @clevelandteams and @bullzeyedotcom.

Blame lies at Snyder’s feet for Albert Haynesworth fiasco

Daniel Snyder, owner of the Washington Redskins NFL team, smiles on the field before their pre-season game against the Baltimore Ravens in Landover, Maryland, August 21, 2010. REUTERS/Jason Reed  (UNITED STATES - Tags: SPORT FOOTBALL)

If Daniel Snyder were looking for someone to blame for the way things have unraveled in Washington with the Albert Haynesworth situation, then all he has to do is plant himself in front of a mirror.

I get that this may be an oversimplified way of looking at the situation, but considering this could have all been avoided had Snyder not fallen victim to the same losing methods that he has embraced over the years, the situation is rather simple to grasp.

Haynesworth is who he is and the same goes for Mike Shanahan. As Shanahan has alluded to, Haynesworth is used to getting his way but that’s not going to fly with his new head coach, who has proven in his short stint with the Redskins that his players will fall in line. If you play for him, you’re going to do things his way, which includes practicing if you want to suit up on Sundays.

If Snyder wanted to avoid this situation, all he had to do was pass on cutting (figuratively, of course) Haynesworth a $100 million check last offseason. But because he had to have Haynesworth’s talent, it didn’t matter what the defensive tackle’s track record looked like.

And let’s look at that track record for a moment.

Read the rest of this entry »

Playing devil’s advocate with the Albert Haynesworth situation

While the rest of us fans and media members are playing the bongos with Albert Haynesworth’s vital organs this week, columnist Patrick Hruby decided to play devil’s advocate with the defensive end’s situation. Hruby even goes as far as to write that he’s sympathetic to Haynesworth.

Here’s the crux of Hruby’s argument:

Haynesworth’s argument essentially goes like this:

I signed with the Redskins expecting to be a havoc-creating, quarterback-attacking playmaker in a 4-3 defense. That’s the role in which I excel; that’s the style of play I enjoy; that’s what was promised during my free-agent courtship. Only now, the team has shifted to a new coaching staff and a new 3-4 scheme, which basically asks me to eat double-team blocks. Thanks, but no thanks. I’d like a little more excitement. A lot more glory. Please send me somewhere else.

Is that really so awful? So craven?

Because this column is about the 6-foot-6, 350-pound Haynesworth — and not, say, the 5-6, 185-pound Darren Sproles — let’s try a food analogy. Imagine you’re a pastry chef. The top pastry chef in New York. A bunch of restaurants want you. One restaurant offers you more money than the others, plus the opportunity to run the dessert menu. You take it. A year later, the same restaurant switches to an all-fondue format and demands that you become a sous chef, chopping chocolate-dippable fruit wedges in the back room.

Technically, you’re still preparing dessert. And you’re still working with sugar. Woo-hoo! But otherwise, it’s not exactly the gig you signed up for. Would you be annoyed? Feeling jerked around? Would you maybe call in sick and check the restaurant want ads, even though you’re perfectly healthy? Would you try to prepare apple tarts somewhere else, perhaps move to a soufflé-friendly city like Boston or Philadelphia?

You would? Good. ‘Cause all of the above is pretty much Haynesworth’s situation. A situation that makes his reaction both understandably human and adult, as opposed to that of the world’s largest pouting toddler.

It’s a fair point, but it only works if the Redskins promised Haynesworth that he wouldn’t have to play in the 3-4. He and his agent claim that’s what the Redskins told him, but there is no proof of that to my knowledge. (Side Note: If anyone has record of the Redskins telling Haynesworth he didn’t have to play in the 3-4, feel free to share it.)

Hruby goes on…

Read the rest of this entry »

Redskins to Haynesworth: We want our money back.

Per Adam Schefter at, the Redskins will try to recoup the $21 million option bonus that they recently paid Albert Haynesworth, who has decided to skip all team activities this offseason because he’s a gigantic crybaby he thinks Washington will waste his talents in a 3-4 defensive alignment.

Before Haynesworth made the decision not to report to the Redskins mandatory minicamp that kicked off Wednesday, the NFL Players Association assured him that the bonus money on the contract he restructured on March 12 would be his to keep, one source said.

But another knowledgeable NFL source that reviewed Haynesworth’s contract and the collective bargaining agreement Wednesday morning said this issue is “open to interpretation” now that the defensive tackle has declined to report to a mandatory minicamp and the Redskins are expected to pursue whatever money they can. The source added, “this is the type of case where a longshot may be given an extra hard look because it is so egregious.”

The egregious part is that Haynesworth is basically stealing from the Skins. They paid him for his services and instead of honoring his contract, he has decided to throw a hissy fit about playing in a defense that he doesn’t like. Talk about a backwards situation.

Perhaps the most interesting part of Schefter’s report is this little nugget:

It also puts the NFLPA in a difficult spot, since it will have to take a stand publicly defending Haynesworth. While players such as Tennessee Titans running back Chris Johnson and New England Patriots guard Logan Mankins want lucrative new deals, Haynesworth became the highest paid player in history at his position — and then chose not to honor the contract because he didn’t like the way he was going to be used in the Redskins defense.

In the end, the NFLPA will have to defend Haynesworth. But that will not endear it to the public at a time when it is gearing up to battle the NFL on a new collective bargaining agreement.

No kidding. Haynesworth was paid $21 million to sit on his ass, while Johnson is actually in line for a raise and is getting nowhere with the Titans. The NFLPA won’t come out of this situation smelling like the bread aisle of a grocery store if it’s forced to back Haynesworth, who is clearly unappreciative of his current situation and who is just looking for an easy way out. I don’t care if it is a long shot – I’m glad to see that the Redskins are taking a proactive approach to the situation and trying to get their money back.

Albert Haynesworth and his agent should start a comedy tour together

I don’t really feel like working today, so I won’t. My writing talents are wasted on a blog like The Scores Report, so I think I’ll just sit at home, fire up re-runs of “Married With Children” and wait for my boss to find me another place of employment.

If you think that sounds ridiculous, then you should hear some of the things Albert Haynesworth is saying through his agent.

This is from the Washington Post:

“The Redskins are trying to establish a new regime with new schemes at Redskins Park, and it is not an organization that Albert would have ever been attracted to just a short year ago – regardless of the money,” agent Chad Speck said in a phone interview. “He has made it clear to me that he does not want to play for the Washington Redskins.

Once I re-attach my spleen from laughing too hard, I’ll get back to this post.

He would have never been attracted to the Redskins a year ago, regardless of money? Who is Speck trying to fool with that comment? It was all about money last year when Haynesworth signed with the Redskins. If he were looking for the best situation, he would have re-signed with the Titans for less. Regardless of the money? Oh God, my spleen is giving out again…

Read the rest of this entry »

Related Posts