Burgold Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Football players love to have a chip on their shoulder and love the us against the world schtick. They rally for various causes. Sometimes it's a noble remembrance like with the death of Sean Taylor. Other times, it's for that amphorous and oft cried battle cry of "Respect" and the desire to get it. Historically, hate works too. Baseball is full of stories where players united, became a team, and found their footing because of HATE. Often, it's about that the manager... but sometimes, it might be about a player who galvanizes and unites anyone. There is a chance that is happening now with Albert Haynesworth. There seems to be a unity, an us against the world, or even an "us" against Albert Haynesworth manifesting in a bunch of quotes. It will be interesting to see if the pettiness and selfishness of Haynesworth contributes to turning this group into a team. I started a thread a while ago saying that a strength of McNabb seemed to be in trying to connect everyone in building bridges and comradery and that today his greatest asset might be "leadership" I think this folds into this idea. I think this team is hungry for success, direction and even "team" McNabb and Shannahan have been trying to build something that will build the team up and something to rally for. Haynesworth has given them something that they can all share in common. Frustration with a selfish bum and diva who is anti-team. If "anti-team" becomes a statement of evil amongst the Redskins that will be a breath of needed fresh air. For two long, this team has been about stars and individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goaldeje Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Possibly, yes. The concern would be that if Fatty comes to TC, and refuses to pay back some of the bonus, or we can't find a trading partner, the players could be stuck with him, which could be a poisonous situation as well. But if we deactivate/trade/release/whatever him, then yes, I think he could be a source of team unity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddub52 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Um, maybe. I dont really get anything like that out of the quotes that Ive read. Care to put any of them in your thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 Just a notion about a common enemy that I gleaned from reading what a bunch o players had to say. I don't know if it will be a unifying force, but I'm looking for a silver lining over here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Possibly, yes. The concern would be that if Fatty comes to TC, and refuses to pay back some of the bonus, or we can't find a trading partner, the players could be stuck with him, which could be a poisonous situation as well. But if we deactivate/trade/release/whatever him, then yes, I think he could be a source of team unity. You're never stuck. Technically, if Haynesworth came to camp I believe the team has every right to tell him they don't want him there. It's tough to derail a team when you're not welcome with the team. But who knows if that's the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoney26 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Seems like this could have gone in one of the other 20 (not exagerating I counted) ah threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Well, with a very few exceptions, it sure seems to have unified the fanbase Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeadExField Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I think AH has a chance to wreck this new team BEFORE it even plays a single game. With the new management and staff, this is a set back to get things rolling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I think yes. Based on the comments from the players so far they appear to be angered over the whole thing. The only exception seems to be some comments from D. Hall. But he always seems to be dancing alone anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dadirtbags Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I think it all depends how it ends...right now...the players seem to be in the state of unity...we need to get rid of him...I believe the faster the better...JMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 I think yes. Based on the comments from the players so far they appear to be angered over the whole thing. The only exception seems to be some comments from D. Hall. But he always seems to be dancing alone anyway. Yeah, you would have expected this from Rogers, but not Hall. Rogers is usually the last one to catch on. DeadExField, I don't think so. At least I hope not. If Albert was here being a cancer I could see him tearing apart the team. Hundreds of miles away and being a sulky brat, I see it being a distraction (in terms of media), an irritation, or a unifying force because maybe the defense will want to prove that they are better than just Albert and that Albert isn't bigger than the team. Even if his salary was bigger than the salary cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsCrushCowboys Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 having one constant person for everyone to hate...usually brings some time of unity and cohesiveness... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassSkinsFan Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I get the feeling they were already on the road to unity before the AH drama. It's probably helping cement that, but I don't believe it to be the main uniting force. I think the OTAs, new coaches and mix of old/new teammates probably got things started pretty solidly prior to Bacongate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustangSteve Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I think AH has a chance to wreck this new team BEFORE it even plays a single game. With the new management and staff, this is a set back to get things rolling Considering AH hasn't even been to camp, I don't think he will be a distraction at all. Nothing has changed, the Redskins continue to practice without him. I do believe this defense won't be as good without him forcing double teams on him, and leaving lanes for RAK to get to the QB. Hopefully someone else will really step it up, or RAK will be getting a lot of double teams himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I wonder how much this sort of thing really matters in the win / loss column. Sure the team played an emotional game against the Bills after Sean's passing, but they still lost, and I can't help but think that at the end of the day, the play on the field is more so effected by having good players who execute a good game plan - and less about feelings and emotion in this sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECU-ALUM Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Well, with a very few exceptions, it sure seems to have unified the fanbase Very true I haven't seen the fanbase united against one person like this since Vinny C. Vinny should send Albert a fruit basket or something with a card saying, "Thank you for making the fans forget about how much they hated me for a while." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 I don't know, but I think that if you really are fighting for each other you might hold onto that block a little longer, you might concentrate a little harder on catches, etc. We had so many drops last year. So, many failures in concentration and execution. I do think that if you believe you work that extra little bit harder... and that might be the difference between making third and short and so consistantly being held short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEREALTOR1 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Considering AH hasn't even been to camp, I don't think he will be a distraction at all. Nothing has changed, the Redskins continue to practice without him.I do believe this defense won't be as good without him forcing double teams on him, and leaving lanes for RAK to get to the QB. Hopefully someone else will really step it up, or RAK will be getting a lot of double teams himself. I agree. IMO, not having AH on that line is a detriment to this D. Obviously, not to take anything away from the anyone else on the D side of the ball, but they are all going to have to take it up a notch, to compensate for not having AH there. I personally hope that both parties somehow come to an amenable agreement that allows AH to get his fat ass back on that line and help this team, all while not being a disruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel2 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I really believe London Fletcher set the tone of unity with his remarks of selfishness that Albert has exhibited. This team is unified and determined not to let the Haynesworth negativity ruin their team spirit. What the hell is Haynesworth thinking? Does he think he is larger - no pun intended = than the team. I sincerely hope this is the last over priced free agent that the Skins sign. A stupid move in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rk3025 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Eagles could not keep McNair away because of union rules in contracts. You're never stuck. Technically, if Haynesworth came to camp I believe the team has every right to tell him they don't want him there. It's tough to derail a team when you're not welcome with the team. But who knows if that's the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 What the hell is Haynesworth thinking? Does he think he is larger - no pun intended = than the team. He is larger than the team. They made him that way when they offered him the huge contract. From that day on, it's been about Albert Haynesworth, not the Washington Redskins. Colossal mistake, the world told us so, we didn't listen. Again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flexxskins Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 If nothing else I believe that he will definitely bring a sense of "unity" to our defense. BTW, good job on an old subject. Well done.:applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Eagles could not keep McNair away because of union rules in contracts. McNair never played with the Eagles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianm23 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Truthfully, you can't bring the guy into the locker room at this point so there is only one thing left to do. You do the same thing that Tampa Bay did to Keyshaun. You send him home (with pay) and let his career rot away for the year(s) until he wants to play bad enough to give back the money. They had issues with Haynesworth last year, so this year didn't help his chemistry on the team. It is and always has been about "I" when it comes to Albert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pvkeeper19 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 There's something seriously wrong when we're even considering the notion that player should rally against their own teammate. Albert, I hate you. So much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.