Going against the Mob, somewhat in support of Haynesworth

[Ryman of the North]

Shocking that the biggest opponent of the 3-4 supports someone who is also opposed to a 3-4. I am shocked.

It's be one thing if you simply were against the 3-4 because its going to take multiple seasons to aquire and integrate the right personnel, I get that, and agree that it is a major issue.

But the fact that you do not buy the 3-4 as a viable defensive scheme whatsoever means these threads of yours are nothing more than a personal vendetta against a philosophy that we have yet to see in practice. Much like Albert Haynesworth.

actually you couldnt be more wrong, im against a 3-4 FOR US, not in general. and I dont think shanny and co will be around long enough to fully mnake the swap so in 3 seasons we will be stuck in between and no better off than we are now (but maybe thats just my cynicism from being a skins fan)

[Ryman of the North]

Understood on your part, I think.

Not surprised anymore if Fat *** does the exact rotten thing you predict. Assuming he really doesn't want to play the role Shanny and Co. have for him, the minute he took the money ALREADY KNOWING what our defense was going to be this season, Haynesworth = POS.

im not really surprised and I dont actually blame him, he was promised that we would run a 4-3, he signed a long contract accordingly, he sees nothing wrong in getting his money given that in his opinion the skins broke their word to him first. despite the posturing he holds all the cards and now shanny has to lump it and either take something worth less than alberta in value or have him sit. He cant afford to be wishy washy.

[mcgraw238]

Im Canadian, we speak and spell in english not murcan. lol.

I agree that the 21 million dollar thing was handled poorly but in my mind if somoene had promised me something and given their word and then broke it, I would be less likely to be completely stand up to them. difference being id show up and play while asking for a trade. and id state on the record that id give back SOME of the money.

All of the "promise" were spelled out in the contract between the parties.

That's contract law 101. It goes like this:

WHEREAS:

I, AH, agree to play football for the Redskins;

I, Pro Football, Inc. DBA The Washington Redskins, agree to pay AH $100 million bucks;

This Agreement is binding on, and shall inure to the benefit of, the heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns of the parties.

No modifications of this Agreement will be effective unless it is in writing and is signed by both parties.

This document, including any attachments, is the entire Agreement between the Parties.

/s AH /s Redskins

There you have it.

If playing DT in a 4-3 just like he used to do with Jeff Fisher was a material element of the agreement between the parties (i.e. the contract), then AH and his reps should have gotten this provision inserted into the contract. To date all we hear about is this "promise" made during negotiations. Your free to hang your hat on that one, but I'm not real sympathetic to AH's reasoning here. If you want to argue moral obligation, which you are essentially doing, then AH should not have cashed the $21 million check. End of story. I'm still discusted this guy dared to reference Reggie White in his press conference.

[Ryman of the North]

and let me be clear, the way Alberta went about this was lame, but its nowhere even near all his fault.

[Ryman of the North]

All of the "promise" were spelled out in the contract between the parties.

That's contract law 101. It goes like this:

WHEREAS:

I, AH, agree to play football for the Redskins;

I, Pro Football, Inc. DBA The Washington Redskins, agree to pay AH $100 million bucks;

This Agreement is binding on, and shall inure to the benefit of, the heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns of the parties.

No modifications of this Agreement will be effective unless it is in writing and is signed by both parties.

This document, including any attachments, is the entire Agreement between the Parties.

/s AH /s Redskins

There you have it.

If playing DT in a 4-3 just like he used to do with Jeff Fisher was a material element of the agreement between the parties (i.e. the contract), then AH and his reps should have gotten this provision inserted into the contract. To date all we hear about is this "promise" made during negotiations. Your free to hang your hat on that one, but I'm not real sympathetic to AH's reasoning here. If you want to argue moral obligation, which you are essentially doing, then AH should not have cashed the $21 million check. End of story. I'm still discusted this guy dared to reference Reggie White in his press conference.

OK so when he shows up overweight and undermotivated and phones it in, thats ok because its not specifically in the contract?

I just said I have no doubt that barring suspension he WILL show up for training camp, because if he doesnt the Skins have legal recourse, as of now they dont.

[Chachie]

Ryman- Show me where it says in Haynesworth's contract that he will be playing only in a 4-3 defense.

Ryman?... Ryyyymaaaaan. No? :pfft:

[Ryman of the North]

show me in his contract where it says he has to show up in shape and motivated and play tackling dummy.

yeah thats what I thought

[mcgraw238]

OK so when he shows up overweight and undermotivated and phones it in, thats ok because its not specifically in the contract?

I just said I have no doubt that barring suspension he WILL show up for training camp, because if he doesnt the Skins have legal recourse, as of now they dont.

To the contrary, I'm sure the contract has a condition clause and a conduct clause...Those clauses are somewhat difficult to nail down but if AH wants to flirt with that path, then I'm sure Snyder & Co. will be more than happy to test the waters to see if AH is in violation. The way the file on AH is building, it would not be in AH's best interest to show up grossly overweight and phone it in; If he does, I suspect he'll have a $21 million judgement against him. Again, this stuff is in the contract.

[Chachie]

show me in his contract where it says he has to show up in shape and motivated and play tackling dummy.

yeah thats what I thought

Not the point of your thread and as the last poster said, it's more likely that their are performance and conduct clauses than it is that a "4-3" clause exists.

You went Patrick Hruby on us, dude. Now swallow the glory.

PS- Okay, anyone got a copy of the contract?

[HailGreen28]

im not really surprised and I dont actually blame him, he was promised that we would run a 4-3, he signed a long contract accordingly, he sees nothing wrong in getting his money given that in his opinion the skins broke their word to him first. despite the posturing he holds all the cards and now shanny has to lump it and either take something worth less than alberta in value or have him sit. He cant afford to be wishy washy.

I underlined the part that is either sloppy thinking on your part, or just plain rotten.

Haslett was hired back in January. Fat *** knew what the Skins were going to play him as, when he decided to take the money in April.

I explained above to you: The coaches didn't lie to him. The Redskins didn't lie to him. The only liar in this matter is Fat ***.

[The Tris]

actually you couldnt be more wrong, im against a 3-4 FOR US, not in general. and I dont think shanny and co will be around long enough to fully mnake the swap so in 3 seasons we will be stuck in between and no better off than we are now (but maybe thats just my cynicism from being a skins fan)

In response to stevemcqueen stating that the 3-4 was

a better, more modern defense than the 4-3. Nearly all of the brightest defensive minds are running it, so there is something to it. The scheme is just fundamentally better equipped to stop a pass heavy team and gives you more multiplicity, versatility, and speed on the field at all times compared to the 4-3. We are in a pass heavy division where teams love running spread formations. The 3-4 is just a better formation for handling that.

You state:

no its not, not even remotely, its not a bad defence but frankly shceme is all about personal preference and the players you have. a 4-3 is easier to hide weak players and undersized players, a 3-4 is very very specialised and much more difficult to make adjustments. the only real advantage to a 3-4 is that A FEW YEARS AGO it was easier to get guys who fit because they were tweeners in a 4-3 and only a few teams used them. another advantage USED TO BE that you didnt see it as much and so teams werent prepped for it. thats no longer the case.

I'm not sure, but it sounds to me like you are of the opinion that the 3-4's time has come and gone.:whoknows:

[charles mannley]

why would you blow things up when you have what is pretty much agreed to be the best 4-3 DT and solid 4-3 personelle at every spot except sam and FS?

We also have a lot of talented 3-4 personel. Not to mention Fat Al hasn't even givin it a shot. You haven't even seen them play yet. They wanted to create more turnovers and confusion can do that. So you play a 3-4 to create turnovers. Their defense was good but not great.

[Ryman of the North]

I would be interested to see that, as of now the consensus seems to be that the skins cant reclaim the money unless he doesnt show up at all for training camp.

[Ryman of the North]

We also have a lot of talented 3-4 personel. Not to mention Fat Al hasn't even givin it a shot. You haven't even seen them play yet. They wanted to create more turnovers and confusion can do that. So you play a 3-4 to create turnovers. Their defense was good but not great.

who exactly?

at OLB we have Rak

on the Dline we have noone who could legitimately be called talented 3-4 personelle as of yet exceopt perhaps kemo who is coming off an achilles injury

[Outlaw Torn]

I am just shocked and Ive hung around here long enough that I shouldnt be but I'm totally shocked that any self respecting Redskin fan would even think about taking up for Haynesworth. I mean who gives 2 ****s what he was promised prior to signing his contract, if we trade him right now there is no way we will get near what we would have if we traded him prior to April 1st. He has screwed this franchise on so many levels and you look for reasons to support him and blame the team. Well good for you buddy glad to see where your loyalty is.

[holmester]

who exactly?

at OLB we have Rak

on the Dline we have noone who could legitimately be called talented 3-4 personelle as of yet exceopt perhaps kemo who is coming off an achilles injury

Except for Philip Daniels who is a better 3-4 DE at this point in his career then he is 4-3, Adam Carriker, Vonnie Holiday, Kemo, and Howard Green.

[DCsportsfan53]

The mental gymnastics the OP will do to push his dislike of the switch to the 3-4 is reaching the point of comical. Didn't you already make a thread about why we should stay with a 4-3? Coulda just added this thought there.

[charles mannley]

who exactly?

at OLB we have Rak

on the Dline we have noone who could legitimately be called talented 3-4 personelle as of yet exceopt perhaps kemo who is coming off an achilles injury

Adam Charikker who is known to be a better 3-4 end (I know we picked him up after we converted), alexander who is extremely versatile but not really a 4-3 guy, philip Daneils whose a DT/DE player in 4-3 so he has the body for 3-4 DL Chris wilson whose a tweener, who knows about fletch or mac yet

[SWFLSkins]

Guys, guys..... this thread isn't about JC17 being wrong, it is about Ryman being wrong

Yeah but one of those is worth discussing and the other is so completely obvious.

[angel2]

show me in his contract where it says he has to show up in shape and motivated and play tackling dummy.

yeah thats what I thought

Truth be known, Ryman, that's what defensive football players do. Its understood those items are their tools until they can get the real dummies. They don't get to chase balloons on the beach.

[SWFLSkins]

I would agree, exceot that you are completely ignoring the fact that SOMEONE broke their word to Albert first.

So that makes it okay to sit down with the new GM and the new HC and look them in the eye and take a check to the bank with the promise to be a good team player. Never mentioning this speculation that you are basing your thread on at that time.

And your saying because Vinny and Snyder told him how he was going to be used originally that when the new HC was hired that did not changed anything including his expectations?

This defies all logic I have ever encountered in the workplace going back to 13years old mowing lawns.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Do people not realize that its not about the 3-4?

He simply doesn't want to play for someone that will hold him accountable.

Which is why it came down to Washington and Tampa last year

[WinSkins]

There is absolutely nothing "mob like" in the reactions to Fat Albert's decision. He, and his agent, misrepresented his intentions. He is a liar and a lousy teammate. When you take the money, you fulfill the contract. It's simple, honest and straightforward. He is also doing a disservice to his fellow players who will certainly pay a price for his arrogance and avarice in the court of public opinion and the negotiating rooms for the new CBA.

[WinSkins]

Rather than attack fellow Redskins fans by referring to them as a "mob," it might be more effective to make a coherent and logical argument and then allow for comments. :whoknows:

[SWFLSkins]

Im talking about Danny, given how involved he has been in the past with the wining and dining I would be very doubtful that he wasnt involved very very heavily here.

Get over that fact. You get hired and then new managers come in and you don't think change is inevitable. What you do with it is your choice.

“Change is the essence of life.Be willing to surrender what you are for what you could become.”

What has Albert Haynesworth become?