Going against the Mob, somewhat in support of Haynesworth

[Ryman of the North]

Of course you hold your opinion higher, like that is a shocking news event. What is laughable is you not getting the MUTE point irony. Canadian humor is french in heritage I guess.

And nice way to sidestep the facts while trying to claim your opinion as such.

LOL your best comedians are canadian you tool, and if that was a joke it not only fell flat but it wasnt very funny to begin with. I am pretty sure it was a malapropism given your lack of ability at discourse.

Mergefrom.svg

It has been suggested that Meaning (linguistics) be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

In linguistics, semantics is the subfield that is devoted to the study of meaning, as inherent at the levels of words, phrases, sentences, and larger units of discourse (referred to as texts). The basic area of study is the meaning of signs, and the study of relations between different linguistic units: homonymy, synonymy, antonymy, polysemy, paronyms, hypernymy, hyponymy, meronymy, metonymy, holonymy, exocentricity / endocentricity, linguistic compounds. A key concern is how meaning attaches to larger chunks of text, possibly as a result of the composition from smaller units of meaning. Traditionally, semantics has included the study of sense and denotative reference, truth conditions, argument structure, thematic roles, discourse analysis, and the linkage of all of these to syntax.

Formal semanticists are concerned with the modeling of meaning in terms of the semantics of logic. Thus the sentence John loves a bagel can be broken down into its constituents (signs), of which the unit loves may serve as both syntactic and semantic head.

there , I can quote wiki to sound smart too.

[bedlamVR]

One thing also missed by Ryman is the fact big Al was not happy in Blaches system . There is no saying he would not have held out again if we had retained the coaching staff or that this was precipitated by something that was or was not said by Mike Shanahan .

From December last year

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/jason-reid/haynesworth-blache-relationshi.html

Also the mandatory camps are work, not practice .I would not mind had he missed OTA or the voluntry workouts (which he did) but last week he should have been there becasue it was a contractual activity . In terms of his contract missing that camp is just as much work as missing the opener against Dallas in September ....

[SWFLSkins]

there , I can quote wiki to sound smart too.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Uh, I actually quoted Webster there smart guy. Obviously you like wiki as your go to.:hysterical:

[SWFLSkins]

LOL your best comedians are canadian you tool, and if that was a joke it not only fell flat but it wasnt very funny to begin with. I am pretty sure it was a malapropism given your lack of ability at discourse.

_______________________________________________

Go read up on Ms. Maloprop will ya. There are done on purpose, doof. She invented them.

I didn't know Henny Youngmen was a canadian.

[SWFLSkins]

One thing also missed by Ryman is the fact big Al was not happy in Blaches system . There is no saying he would not have held out again if we had retained the coaching staff or that this was precipitated by something that was or was not said by Mike Shanahan .

--------------------------------------------------------------

HUh? HE was not happy in the 4-3 either? NO say it ain't so Bedlam. Beware though facts here are fragile and break upon arrival with the OP twisting them to his will.

[Forever21]

Haynesworth is yesterday's news. He was paid in April. His future salary hit for the team is now manageable for the team regardless of what is done with him.

Only a fool would look at this team and see the additions of McNabb, Williams, Brown and a host of other players and not see that Shanahan is moving aggressively to improve the product that is going to take the field in September.

Haynesworth doesn't want to be part of that, that's his choice.

This team will be fine without him.

And because of that, Shanahan and Allen will take their time and find a deal to ship him out of town.

If the Redskins can recoup a player in exchange, perhaps a physical WR or a linebacker with experience in the 3-4, that would be a positive step forward.

Wonderfully put Bulldog. Level headed, logical, and everything that most threads deteroriate away from.

My main hope is that AH is sent to a team that has no chance of being a contender in the next 4-5 years so his career is wasted. He has proven himself to not deserve anything positive as he seems to bring nothing positive to his teams. Not a nice thing to say I know but I feel very little sympathy for rich athletes.

[Henry]

I hate to do this, seeing as how much anger is still being thrown around in this thread, but I agree with Ryman.

Albert is acting like a selfish, classless, egotistical jerk, but the Redskins are not completely innocent victims here. How many times over these years are we going to blame the player? Why is never the Redskins' fault that Sanders only plays one season here, or that Trotter plays two, or that Arrington dissappears from the roster and pays us to leave, or that Bailey doesn't want to play here, or that Coles doesn't like our scheme or Lloyd is an attitude problem or ... am I leaving anyone out?

Every year it seems like some high-profile player has turned into a raging selfish lunatic and the poor old Redskins have no choice but to get rid of him and move on.

You know what? At some point you gotta stop blaming the rest of the world.

If there's one thing we should know by now, it's that Snyder is great at bringing people in and ... that's it. Once a player is here our record at maximizing his abilities is spotty at best. This latest fiasco is merely another example of that.

Ryman is correct that Haynesworth was signed to be the centerpiece of our defense.

Ryman is correct that switching to a 3-4 is a huge head-scratcher of a move.

Ryman is correct that Haynesworth has no incentive to work with us in good faith when we have clearly not done so on our end.

Now many of you raise the good point that an honorable man would not take the money and then demand a trade. That is all on AH. But we allowed ourselves to be put in this position, and seeing as we'll still be rooting for the Redskins years after Haynesworth is gone and forgotton I think it would behoove us to learn, finally, from this mistake and stop repeating it, rather than just continuing to rage at the latest selfish player that doesn't want to try and keep up with our changing schemes.

I will now proceed to duck and cover.

[Henry]

One thing also missed by Ryman is the fact big Al was not happy in Blaches system . There is no saying he would not have held out again if we had retained the coaching staff or that this was precipitated by something that was or was not said by Mike Shanahan .

--------------------------------------------------------------

HUh? HE was not happy in the 4-3 either? NO say it ain't so Bedlam. Beware though facts here are fragile and break upon arrival with the OP twisting them to his will.

Actually, what I heard was that Blache didn't want AH here. Perhaps something our front office might have wanted to take into account when thinking about signing him? :whoknows:

[LD0506]

I don't think anyone is really arguing that the FO has not been a fustercluck for a long time, we've all seen it and rolled our eyes until they threatened to pop right out of our heads. It's just that, no matter what, Haynesworth's actions seem premeditated and completely indefensible.

I continue to try and convince myself that this will be the last time we see this kind of thing happen.

[The 12th Commandment]

Here and on the sports sites, in articles siding with AH, I've seen a continual mentioning of how the NFL and ownerships gets a pass in situations like this. When did we ever give our front office a pass on anything? We blasted them to the point of capitulation last year over antics like mistreating players and fans.

[KDawg]

Actually, what I heard was that Blache didn't want AH here. Perhaps something our front office might have wanted to take into account when thinking about signing him? :whoknows:

That's Vinny for you.

[LD0506]

Good point, go ask Millen how much of a pass he got in Detroit.

[MattFancy]

Actually, what I heard was that Blache didn't want AH here. Perhaps something our front office might have wanted to take into account when thinking about signing him? :whoknows:

I thought I remembered hearing that too. Kind of how Blache didn't want Jason Taylor here either. Pretty much shows that Vinny didn't care what the coaches wanted, he just did his own thing.

[grego]

Now many of you raise the good point that an honorable man would not take the money and then demand a trade. That is all on AH. But we allowed ourselves to be put in this position,

ya but thats a bit like suing mcdonalds when you spill their hot coffee in your lap. or, better yet, a thief suing the homeowner for shooting him.

yes, the skins have had too much turnover. yes, they have given certain high profile players too much money.

but if we're talking about here and now, shanahan is a winner, and he's not likely to be going anywhere anything soon. als wrong. you take the money, you play. with his current and former teammates unified in their disgust for his actions, theres really no excuse for him.

[Ryman of the North]

That was a good post Henry. and not just because it was in support of what I said but because its just boiled down how most of us who have been around here for decades feel.

It would seem very few read the title of a thread as well as the OP before forming an opinion. I am far from completely on Albertas side here, frankly his actions are not what I had hoped for but they were what I expected.

I am not defending the undefendable but merely saying he is not entirely to blame here, do people blame the rain for falling? We made promises to an immature DT with a history of selfishness (most great have that btw) then we were shocked when that guy felt we broke our word to him and had no compunctions about breaking his. I dont think it can be put more simply than that.

[ntotoro]

I thought I remembered hearing that too. Kind of how Blache didn't want Jason Taylor here either. Pretty much shows that Vinny didn't care what the coaches wanted, he just did his own thing.

I think he was bound & determined to put his stamp on this team and actually thought it would succeed, thus making him look like a genius. As soon as Gibbs was out the door, the FO went on and on about continuity, then scuttled everything that existed. Funny how things actually turn out, right?

[The Tris]

I think the problem is that there are two seperate issues at hand.

1) The wisdom of a defensive scheme change

2) A player not honoring his contract

Just because you and the player agree on the wisdom of a scheme change does not absolve the player of refusing to honor his contract.

People that are defending Haynesworth are doing so to use him as a justification to support their stance on something else. For Ryman, it is the wisdom of the switch to the 3-4. For Michael Wilbon, it is that the NFL mistreats its players due to the multitude of offseason demands.

While there are merits to both opinions, that does not excuse the fact that Albert Haynesworth has failed to live up to his contract, whether passively (going through 2009 out of shape) or actively (refusing to particapate in mandatory off season activities). Whether you believe Haynesworth to be justified in his opposition to the 3-4, that does not justify his conduct as a professional.

[slaga]

Albert is being paid a king's ransom to play a child's game, and Albert is too childish to play. No one is asking him to do anything immoral, unethical, etc. Just play football and do whatever the team needs to win.

The powers that be in any organization, football or otherwise, do not always do as they promised, especially when they get replaced and the organization heads in a new direction with new leadership. That's life. Deal with it. If you take their money, you better make sure you get the job done to the best of your ability.

If playing in a 3-4 was a deal breaker, Albert should have had it written into his contract. He obviously did not. No, the front office was / is not perfect, but Albert is being paid to do a job and he is balking at it. To me, this is 90% on Albert. The defense is changing the scheme and Albert is "non-negotiable" about what he is willing to do.

[Henry]

Here and on the sports sites, in articles siding with AH, I've seen a continual mentioning of how the NFL and ownerships gets a pass in situations like this. When did we ever give our front office a pass on anything? We blasted them to the point of capitulation last year over antics like mistreating players and fans.

With the notable exception of last year, we've given Snyder and co. a pass on EVERYTHING. It's ALWAYS the media who's against us, who makes stuff up, who never sees our point of view.

It's always going to be different under this new coach, or that new management system. Snyder has always been misunderstood. He's always learned from his mistakes and is changing his ways.

I've been around this board since it's inception. Trust me, we always give the man a pass.

And I'm not saying this to show the world how smart I am and how dumb everyone else is. I've been just as guilty of this as anyone.

I think last season opened a lot of people's eyes about just how long we've been giving upper management the benefit of the doubt, and how damaging that's been to the franchise. I also think it's important we don't forget that now. Hiring a GM and a proven coach is a good start. But in my opinion we have a long, long road of recovery ahead of us. A good step at this point would be to realize what WE can do to keep these high-profile-expensive-guy-doesn't-work-out-again situations from happening on our end, rather than just raging against the player. Because we've been doing the latter for years, and it has solved nothing.

[Henry]

I think the problem is that there are two seperate issues at hand.

1) The wisdom of a defensive scheme change

2) A player not honoring his contract

Just because you and the player agree on the wisdom of a scheme change does not absolve the player of refusing to honor his contract.

People that are defending Haynesworth are doing so to use him as a justification to support their stance on something else. For Ryman, it is the wisdom of the switch to the 3-4. For Michael Wilbon, it is that the NFL mistreats its players due to the multitude of offseason demands.

While there are merits to both opinions, that does not excuse the fact that Albert Haynesworth has failed to live up to his contract, whether passively (going through 2009 out of shape) or actively (refusing to particapate in mandatory off season activities). Whether you believe Haynesworth to be justified in his opposition to the 3-4, that does not justify his conduct as a professional.

This is a good point. Haynesworth doesn't really deserve 'defending' and I don't think a lot of people are going to go to the mat for him.

But when something like this happens it's always a good idea to take a step back and see what we can learn from it. At some point the screaming at AH until we're red in the face must subside. I don't really care about him. I do care about the Redskins, so naturally I'll want to see what we can do to avoid this in the future.

[Skins24]

I think it would behoove us to learn, finally, from this mistake and stop repeating it, rather than just continuing to rage at the latest selfish player that doesn't want to try and keep up with our changing schemes.

I will now proceed to duck and cover.

Completely agree....

(about the duck and cover part )

Yes, we should definitely learn from their mistakes and never have a losing season again and keep the same coaches indefinitely.

Unfortunately, I don't think it works that way. Change is inevitable. Every NFL player knows this.

Yep, Haynesworth was brought in to be a center piece of our defense. And it's very possible he could have been. But he doesn't even want to hear what the coaches have in store for him. He just hears 3-4 and wants out. Pretty sure the coaches didn't tell him we'll play 3-4 every down. Pretty sure the coaches didn't tell him he'll just play nose tackle. Pretty sure the coaches didn't tell him he won't be able to do what he does best in this scheme. So, what exactly is he afraid of that he won't even come in and see what we're building?

This *%&$%!# has the nerve to say he's all about the team when really he thinks his stats will go down. We didn't break any promises we made, how could we since we're still months away from the season starting? He just thinks we're going to without coming in to see for sure.

Ryman is correct that switching to a 3-4 is a huge head-scratcher of a move.

Not really. Having a top 10 defense and 0 turnovers - and a 4-12 record, that's the head-scratcher.

All those players you mentioned...funny how problems started when we brought in or had a real coach. Eh, that's just a coincidence though I'm sure.

[SkinsHokieFan]

But when something like this happens it's always a good idea to take a step back and see what we can learn from it. At some point the screaming at AH until we're red in the face must subside. I don't really care about him. I do care about the Redskins, so naturally I'll want to see what we can do to avoid this in the future.

I do agree to a point

This team has had some bad breakups this past decade

Stephen Davis, Champ Bailey, L. Coles, Lavar Arrington, Archuletta/Lloyd, and now Haynesworth.

That was definitley part of the culture that existed here. I am hoping that moving forward this changes

[The Tris]

I think last season opened a lot of people's eyes about just how long we've been giving upper management the benefit of the doubt, and how damaging that's been to the franchise. I also think it's important we don't forget that now. Hiring a GM and a proven coach is a good start.

So we finally hold the front office accountable and clean house, replacing, um, to be nice, "unqualified people" with qualified people*, and now suddenly we should start questioning every move made by management and siding with a player that to this point has done nothing to warrant such defense?

Where's the logic in that? I mean, this is where we are drawing the line in the sand, because Haynesworth also doesn't support the change to a 3-4?

*I know that the Mike-Shanahan-Egomanic-Agenda crew, is going to question his record as a GM (rightly so), but is there really a case to be made that this upper managment team is less qualified that the previous staff? If not, then shouldn't they get at least a modicum of the benefit of the doubt awarded to their far inferior and less accomplished predecessors?

[TheLongshot]

Albert is acting like a selfish, classless, egotistical jerk, but the Redskins are not completely innocent victims here. How many times over these years are we going to blame the player? Why is never the Redskins' fault that Sanders only plays one season here, or that Trotter plays two, or that Arrington dissappears from the roster and pays us to leave, or that Bailey doesn't want to play here, or that Coles doesn't like our scheme or Lloyd is an attitude problem or ... am I leaving anyone out?

Some of those things are the Redskins fault, agreed. (I'll disagree with Arrington, who got hurt and never was the same player and Lloyd, who's problems were his own creation.) But, let's get real about Big Al. Coles, at the very least, tried out the new offensive scheme and didn't like it. That's something that you can't say about Big Al. He seems to have rejected the scheme out of hand, and I question if he'd fit in anyone's scheme in that he has his own idea of how he should be used. (Remember, he wasn't happy under Blache either.)

One thing that Coles, Taylor and Big Al have in common is that they have remorse for leaving their respective teams. Problem is, there is an investment that the team made in them as well. Signing a big contract is a dual edged sword. That big money comes with strings.

If there's one thing we should know by now, it's that Snyder is great at bringing people in and ... that's it. Once a player is here our record at maximizing his abilities is spotty at best. This latest fiasco is merely another example of that.

Actually, the vast majority of players we have brought in here have been happy to be here. It is only those few that decide that the big money they get allows them to throw their weight around. Sometimes they get away with it, sometimes they don't. In an ideal world, they shouldn't get away with it, since they are under contract as players and not running things.

Ryman is correct that Haynesworth was signed to be the centerpiece of our defense.

Ryman is correct that switching to a 3-4 is a huge head-scratcher of a move.

Ryman is correct that Haynesworth has no incentive to work with us in good faith when we have clearly not done so on our end.

The funny thing about the first statement is that the current coaching staff would like for Haynesworth to be the centerpiece of the DL. Problem is, Haynesworth doesn't like that idea, no matter that he doesn't even know everything that entails.

As for the last statement, the situation has been explained to him and he was given his options. There was an understanding that if he took the bonus money that he'd be expected to do what the coaching staff wanted him to do. For him to wait until the 11th hour to vocalize his displeasure is disingenuous of him. Up until the eve of minicamp, the team was expecting him to be here.

[Henry]

but if we're talking about here and now, shanahan is a winner, and he's not likely to be going anywhere anything soon.

I'm curious, what has Shanahan done that indicates he's gonna stick around for a long time? Trade picks for an old QB? Trade picks for a tackle?

He's making moves to win now. I think they are in general good moves, mind you, but he's not taking a long term approach. I'll be shocked if he stays longer than four years.

And Allen, well, he was hired to lure Shanahan here, wasn't he? Is he guaranteed a job when Shanahan leaves? I don't know.

Fact is, we really don't know that our current situation is any more long term than when Gibbs signed on (or Schottenheimer for that matter.) Snyder is great at reacting. He sees a problem and dives into it. He is not great at showing a ton of patience. I am anxious to see him change into the type of owner that hires great people and lets them work, and maybe now he will. But it will take more than one offseason for us to know. Hopefully this will be the last time we see a disaster like this occur due to front office negligence. Snyder has shown us that he does occasionally listen to his fans, so holding him accountable for his role in this situation may not be a bad idea.