Redskins4ever Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Haynesworth needs to stop crying and just play football. With his size and brute strength, he can flourish in a 4-3 scheme, a 3-4 scheme, or a 46 scheme. The defensive coordinator would more than likely find a way to make plays. As a NFL player, he needs to understand that he's not in Tennessee anymore. That said, he should talk with Haslett about how he would like to be used. Haslett I'm sure, knows of Haynesworth's strengths as a defensive tackle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Day Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 It's a good thing this is an uncapped year then. But as much as people praise Danny for spending money, I don't think he's THIS willing to spend money. Yep, basically is a 1st and whatever else round pick you would get for AH be worth UP TO 23 million cash for Snyder and the Skins. I would say yeah it would be. For others AH contract is very doable once the bonus money is removed. Just want to add that I don't think there is anyway we convert to a 3-4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dg28daman Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Just want to add that I don't think there is anyway we convert to a 3-4. I agree completely. Haslett's not an idiot, and he's gotta know that we have some great players that might not necassarilly play to the strengths of a 3-4. It's like Shanny said, you tailor the scheme to the players, not the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boofMcboof Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 This. If Ngata can be a successful 3-4 DE, there's no reason Haynesworth can't. Uh, what? Haynesworth will NOT play effectively standing up or dropping back into coverage. Ngata and Big Al are two completely different types of players. Haynesworth would be a complete waste in the 3-4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Another player with possible trade implications from a move to 3-4 is Andre Carter. He is too small to play DE in that scheme and he failed at LB in San Fran. I believe he has a no trade clause in his contract though. If we could get around that (if he agrees) he could still fetch a decent draft pick, coming off an 11 sack season. Yeah SF foolishly switched to a 3-4 when they had a decent 4-3 defense in which Carter shined. Overhauling the current defense will set us back alot instead of just tweaking it with an infusion of youth and hands in the secondary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsCrushCowboys Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 get 2#1s for him...nothing less! I assume you are referring to two #1 value meals at McDonalds... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 If 2010 is uncapped... we'd take a hit and lose money... even though it might be uncapped, I don't think Snyder is THAT liberal with his money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dallasfan Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 This. If Ngata can be a successful 3-4 DE, there's no reason Haynesworth can't. Ngata's accepts his role, because he's never been a pass rusher. I don't think anyone is saying Haynesworth can't play 3-4 DE or NT, but considering he ******* and moaned about Blache's system, it's likely he won't accept his role now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottishskinsfan Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Definitely not tradeable. Capped or uncapped year, Snyder rightfully so won't shell out £30m+ to get rid of him. My worry is that Haynesworth will give up trying completly in a 3-4 and then it leaves you with little option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hail-to-da-skins-21 Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I like the guy alot but if he doesnt want to play in the system (not sure if it is true) then he should be traded we need players who want to win and dont care about their stats is it possible for him to give back money by reworking his contract and then be traded ?k ind of like what lavar did but instead of releasing him we trade him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamboater Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Care to explain why Haynesworth can not look at Ratliff and say damn I guess you can still be a force and make plays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgraw238 Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I betcha Albert won't care what system he is in if you let him go out and be disruptive. Albert's beef with Blache was on gap control, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamboater Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Ratliff is quite small for a NT and is extremely disruptive. I think Haynesworth power, size and speed with help from Orakpo and others can create a similar situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodriggo Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Both Haynesworth and Haslett will figure out a way to work together. By July they'll be running wind sprints down the beach in knee high socks, hugging, jumping up and down in the waves when they're done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGREENHULK Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 My guess we are going to run a hybrid of the 4-3 and 3-4 and that should make Haynesworth happy...he is not an every down player anyway...as we found out this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Both Haynesworth and Haslett will figure out a way to work together.By July they'll be running wind sprints down the beach in knee high socks, hugging, jumping up and down in the waves when they're done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikie Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 if we got a true NT, using AH as a DE in the 3-4 could be quite disruptive... if he draws doubleteams now and we get an NT that also occupies two guys, would be tough to scheme against our pass rushers with two guys eating up 4... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackBush Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Looks like it is an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodriggo Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Edds Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 ... it will be great because at any moment we can switch back and forth from 3-4 and 4-3... a hybrid system that we are most likely to run... this ... don't the Eagles still run a 4-3 base defense? if that is indeed the case, they sure do a great job at blitzing and stunting. I'm not a coach, but from this fan's view it sure is hard to tell exactly what their base defense is. Haynesworth needs to STFU and get in line ... we didn't bring him in here to do what he wants to do. he got his money ... now go play ball and do what the coaches tell you to do. if all he was concerned about was his individual success in a particular scheme, then he should have stayed in Tenn where he had already proven himself. He took the money, now he needs to get in shape and earn those paychecks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 This. If Ngata can be a successful 3-4 DE, there's no reason Haynesworth can't. Except that he doesnt want to be one. And we still dont have a NT, which is the key for th 3-4 He's one of the most tradeable players in the league. Danny would have to pay his signing bonus (and I believe other guaranteed bonuses, but not sure) so the other team would get a great player at a cheap price.And since it's an uncapped year, the cap hit that would usually occur by trading him wouldn't matter. But I don't think Danny is willing to spend $20 mil or whatever it is just to have Haynesworth for a year plus the first round pick we'd get for him. Not really, He has one of the highest guaranteed saleries ever. He would be about the hardest guy to trade. Cap or no Cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlayAction Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Haynesworth will not be a NT. The job of the NT is to be a space-eater and occupy blockers. Haynesworth was signed with the understanding that that would NOT be his role. He won't do it and there's nothing the Skins can do to force him to play that way. The question is whether he can play DE in a manner that still works with the 3:4 system that Haslett may employ. Haynesworth wants to be a disruptor not a DLman that occupies blockers so that the LBs can make the plays. If he's not going to be a disruptor in the new system that the Skins would be better off trading him. Danny is going to have to pay $20million to Haynesworth in March. Haynesworth could be traded after June 1st so that there's no cap hit but the draft will have already passed. It's possible that some team would be willing to pay some amount + a player + draft pick(s) in 2011 for Haynesworth. How about $10million cash + an OLman now + a first round pick in 2011????? Other team gets Haynesworth for 10million guaranteed plus 2 years of the cheap part of the contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 If 2010 is uncapped... we'd take a hit and lose money... even though it might be uncapped, I don't think Snyder is THAT liberal with his money That's really a question of mindset. The 32 mil is something we have/will pay him and there's absolutely nothing that can be done about it. The question (when considered properly) comes down to: A) Pay him that 32 mil, plus the 9 mil he's guaranteed for the next two years, and possibly 7.2 mil more for 2012; or Pay him the 32 mil, trade him and let someone else pay the salary for the next two years and get whatever you can for him. If you determine that trading him is the best for the team, then keeping him just because you've already paid him is shoddy (if understandable) logic. It's all sunk cost. Of course, it depends on what kind of trade value he could fetch and where you see the team going with or without him, as well as whether you're thinking longer-term or shorter-term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hp703 Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Wait, you mean to tell me he's not worth the money we offered/gave him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Yes. The Bucs offered him more than we did last year. I'd even say he'd take less money elsewhere if he was going to be 'happier with the scheme / his role'. I think he has great trade value if we go down that route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.