Poll: Do you think a coach should play a talented player on game day, no matter their level of insubordination? ( Ninja Voters)

[Commander PK]

After listening to Brian Mitchell today talk about how Shanahan talks about putting his "best players on the field" on game day, but he doesn't do it with Albert Haynesworth. I thought of this poll.

We have had a culture of diva, prima donna behavior in Washington for years. I truly believe that Mike Shanahan and Bruce Allen are doing everything in their power to change this, and I fully support them in their efforts. I realize that this change is not going to happen overnight. I'm willing to wait for success.

Obviously, this poll speaks to Haynesworth, but also to any other potential Haynesworth type of player. Do you think any gifted player, or star player should be allowed to coast or follow their own rules and still play on game day? Should they be allowed to show up late, give 50% in practice, and still get on the field just for the sake of winning now? (Which in the case of the Giants game, one the Skins probably would have lost anyhow) I don't want any fence answers. Either Yes or No.

For me, if Haynesworth in this instance did not prepare like he was supposed to, and is not putting out 100%, then you don't play him. Period. End of story. I don't care that the Giants gashed us all day. This year is about changing the culture of the team. If it takes games like yesterday to do that, then so be it.

[2006Skins]

No, but to an extent. It seems now that Shanny is overkill at this point. We get it, Haynesworth is lazy and beligerant and you don't want him on the team. But when this team is lacking in talent and depth the way they are, there really isn't much excuse not to play him imo

[Bang]

I didn't vote. I think it depends.

If you're taking over a bad team with a prima donna attitude like Shanny is, you sit a man to make a point, especially if that man is the biggest prima donna of them all.

if you're the Pats and Tom Brady mouths off, you brush it off and let him play.

The difference is one is an established winner, and the other is trying to establish a new attitude to try and foster winning. that has tremendous bearing on thye rules.

~Bang

[Bobbyst21]

No.If we cant play the man and cant trade the man,well we're stuck paying the man.Lets feed him till he's so damn fat he cant tie his shoes and make sure he never plays again.

F@#k FAT ***** Albert.

[Commander PK]

I didn't vote. I think it depends.

If you're taking over a bad team with a prima donna attitude like Shanny is, you sit a man to make a point, especially if that man is the biggest prima donna of them all.

if you're the Pats and Tom Brady mouths off, you brush it off and let him play.

The difference is one is an established winner, and the other is trying to establish a new attitude to try and foster winning. that has tremendous bearing on thye rules.

~Bang

and to an extent, your Brady comparison is kind of my point. Brady could probably get away with a little bit of "insubordination" at this point, because he's Tom Brady, and the Patriots have been kicking the **** out of teams like the Redskins for the last decade. They have won Super Bowls. The team winning has a great deal to do with whether or not a level of insubordination could be tolerated. However, when your trying to change the culture of a team, that has spent the better part of 20 years at the bottom of their division. You have to lead with an iron fist. Frankly, there is no player on this team. Haynesworth or any other, that is in a position to get away with diva like behavior. Make a couple playoff runs, and then maybe showing up to practice a minute or two late wouldn't be that big of a deal.

---------- Post added December-6th-2010 at 10:34 PM ----------

when this team is lacking in talent and depth the way they are, there really isn't much excuse not to play him imo

I think that Shanahan is reacting to some new problem with Albert, so I don't think it's overkill if it's something new. Maybe they keep thinking they have turned the corner with Albert, but then for whatever reason he falls back into "Albert" mode. He works when he wants, and maybe this week after the loss last weekend to the Vikings he decided to lay down.

The excuse not to play him, is if you are trying to make your point to the larger team, then you don't give an inch whatsoever for anybody. Even if it means accepting short term losses.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Doc Walker was the same Sunday saying words to the effect of "you hate the Giants more than you hate Haynesworth."

I totally disagreed with him then, as I do Mitch today. When a guy has repeatedly flaunted most every aspect of what your trying to do, and continues in refusing to buy into most anything you as the HC have set down for your team; you have to be seen to be the one in charge to the rest of the team and discipline his ass. If not, your in serious danger of losing the locker room's respect for you.

Some people just don't appreciate that some things are WAY bigger than guy's mere athletic ability.

Hail.

[Redskins4ever]

No, a coach should never allow a player to play in that situation. No one is above the team, regardless of how spectacular they play, and no matter the impact the player might have had in a game in which they did not play because of disciplinary reasons. You always make that player suffer the consequences for his actions. You have to have accountability.

[skinsarethebest]

I think this is a really hard question to answer. It would depend on the level of insubordination and, to be honest, the particular circumstances surrounding the game itself. For instance, if the game were a critical Game 17 matchup that determines the difference between going to the playoffs and staying home, I think it would be cutting off your own nose to spite your face to sit the player in that situation. And yes, even if it were on the Haynesworth level of magnitude of stupidity/insubordination.

[IrepDC]

We are undefeated in moral victories. Hopefully down the road, we can stop getting embarrassed in real games. Any other coach makes his player sit out a series or a quarter; Mike sits his guy the whole game. It's getting annoying.

[Commander PK]

I think this is a really hard question to answer. It would depend on the level of insubordination and, to be honest, the particular circumstances surrounding the game itself. For instance, if the game were a critical Game 17 matchup that determines the difference between going to the playoffs and staying home, I think it would be cutting off your own nose to spite your face to sit the player in that situation. And yes, even if it were on the Haynesworth level of magnitude of stupidity/insubordination.

Do you think any player on this team, right here, right now, should be allowed to play if they are say, 2 minutes late to a meeting with no good reason, or if they are clearly holding back in practice?

---------- Post added December-6th-2010 at 11:04 PM ----------

We are undefeated in moral victories. Hopefully down the road, we can stop getting embarrassed in real games. Any other coach makes his player sit out a series or a quarter; Mike sits his guy the whole game. It's getting annoying.

I believe that the only way to those victories down the road, is to change the culture of the team.

Sending a clear, and consistent message to the team on what will and will not be tolerated from anyone, regardless of talent. One good aspect of all of this, is that it seems Haynesworth is the only person who won't get on board.

As far as the game itself yesterday, I don't think Haynesworth would have made any difference. Even with their own injuries, the fact is the Giants are vastly superior to the Redskins talent wise, so are the Eagles and the Cowboys. Painful truth, but a truth nonetheless. Thank Vinny, and the old way of doing things.

---------- Post added December-6th-2010 at 11:06 PM ----------

also, everybody should be aware that this poll is public.

[Destino]

Clearly not. However I don't think a coach should be walking around looking to create some drama either. Plus I'm tired of coaches installing system's blindly and then pretending the players are wrong for pointing out they are being put in a bad position. Haynesworth is chirping the most obviously but ultimately he's right, he's not a 3-4 guy. Andre Carter was also right, he's not a 3-4 guy. Shanahan's ego in putting a system above players instead of designing a system to make the most of what he has took our two best defensive lineman off the field.

So yes, Shanahan has failed to field his talent. In Haynesworth's case because he can't get over his hatred of the system and in Carter's case because he can't succeed in it. Shanahan has been as big of a cause of the drama on this team as the players he's had it out with.

Also this binary question is absurd. "no matter their level" and then pretending the answers are relevant. So if a player pisses on the coaches car it equates to Haynesworth's situation? Come on now this loaded poll is ridiculous. The reality is Haynesworth shouldn't be on this team but the ownership didn't want to pay for their own mistakes.

[hitmandm]

We are undefeated in moral victories. Hopefully down the road, we can stop getting embarrassed in real games. Any other coach makes his player sit out a series or a quarter; Mike sits his guy the whole game. It's getting annoying.

Well said. AH has been a douchebag, but Shanny has thrown gas on the fire and continues to do so. It would even be tolerable if he seemed to have a plan, but frankly from McNabb, to the 3-4 to AH, nothing he has done has really worked out.

The situation is clear. AH didnt sign here to play 3-4. I think it's fair that he balks at playing the 3-4. Any other All Pro player in the league would probably do the same but less childishly. AH is a Star player. 99% of star players who are ALL Pros arent good with switching positions. Instead of trying to bring the AH in reasonably or compromising, Shanny says it my way or nothing and for weeks embarrasses AH in front of the media for weeks to prove a point. Cutting off your nose to spite your face, and what does it get us? A defense that is last in the NFL when it was always top 10. Why? Because a lot of players are not playing their positions. AH is selfishly pointing out an issue that we all have noticed: Why switch to a 3-4 when we dont have the personnell to play a 3-4. AH is the best 4-3 DT in the league and you make him play NT. Doesnt make sense. We have all 4-3 LBs and we make them play 3-4. Andre Carter had 10+ sacks last year and we move him to 3-4 LB where he has already failed in SF. None of it makes sense.

Shanny has screwed this thing up with the same authoritariuan arrogance that got under a lot of player's skins in Denver. I think he can build a winner for us, but he needs to learn its not always my way or the highway in this league.

[Commander PK]

Clearly not. However I don't think a coach should be walking around looking to create some drama either. Plus I'm tired of coaches installing system's blindly and then pretending the players are wrong for pointing out they are being put in a bad position. Haynesworth is chirping the most obviously but ultimately he's right, he's not a 3-4 guy. Andre Carter was also right, he's not a 3-4 guy. Shanahan's ego in putting a system above players instead of designing a system to make the most of what he has took our two best defensive lineman off the field.

So yes, Shanahan has failed to field his talent. In Haynesworth's case because he can't get over his hatred of the system and in Carter's case because he can't succeed in it.

Shanahan has been as big of a cause of the drama on this team as the players he's had it out with.

Shanahan has said that he believes the 3-4 was the right way to go long-term for this team. Would they have implemented the 3-4 Defense in a different manner, had they seen how this season would progress. Who knows.

As for Haynesworth, his job is to play. He was paid millions of dollars to play a kids game, and he is contractually obligated to perform.

Do you think if Haynesworth was a laborer at a construction site, that he could get away with being insubordinate, because the foreman decides to change his responsibilities? Think about your job and my job. Can you stop working hard tomorrow because somebody in Human Resources decides to change your job description without your permission?

[MumboSauce]

Shanahan is doing what he should...when you are trying to establish something, change a culture, you have to be strict, enforce and not waiver...once you learn players and they "earn" trust and prove something then you can back off on certain players...then players can be managed differently. Different people/men require a different handling, one method does not work for all..but when starting out/establishing you do what Shanahan is doing. i have no problem with it.

[Commander PK]

Well said. AH has been a douchebag, but Shanny has thrown gas on the fire and continues to do so. It would even be tolerable if he seemed to have a plan, but frankly from McNabb, to the 3-4 to AH, nothing he has done has really worked out.

we are 12 games into his first year, and you already know that nothing he has done has worked out?

The situation is clear. AH didnt sign here to play 3-4. I think it's fair that he balks at playing the 3-4. Any other All Pro player in the league would probably do the same but less childishly. AH is a Star player. 99% of star players who are ALL Pros arent good with switching positions. Instead of trying to bring the AH in reasonably or compromising, Shanny says it my way or nothing and for weeks embarrasses AH in front of the media for weeks to prove a point. Cutting off your nose to spite your face, and what does it get us?

Haynesworth doesn't get to make that decision. I'm sure there was no clause in Albert's contract that stated, "In case the team goes belly up, and the entire coaching staff and G.M. is fired, you will be paid and released if the new regime decides to change the defensive scheme."

what does it get us? A culture change over the long-term, which is better than appeasing Haynesworth now.

Shanny has screwed this thing up with the same authoritariuan arrogance that got under a lot of player's skins in Denver. I think he can build a winner for us, but he needs to learn its not always my way or the highway in this league.

tell that to Bill Belichick. The man who cuts Randy Moss.

Edit: and after he does so, his team continues to beat the snot out of most of their opponents. See tonights game. Patriots 45 Jets 3

[P O'Keefe]

This is a great post in my opinion. The most persistent thought that keeps going through my head is, Who's running the asylum?

That's been one of the greatest problems with this organization for a long time. When the players start controlling how you play and practice then the head coach has lost control and continuity. Coach Shannahan is in the process of changing the overall culture of this organization and I admire his tenacity. He was handed a team that has great talent, but some of that talent was not in my opinion team oriented.

Just because you're the greatest at what you do doesn't make you the best at what you're doing. if you're going against the grain of what's best for the overall organization you're more of a hindrance than an asset. That stands true no matter what you're occupation is. For example; I may be a great tap dancer, but if my new boss wants me to slow dance because we'll get more done and improve my chances of success and job security, then I'm going to learn how to waltz.

In order to be successful everyone must be going in the same direction.

[Commander PK]

again, the only way for everybody to see the true results of the poll is to click on the numbers next to Yes and No. Ninjas are voting in force.

[Conn]

This is a great post in my opinion. The most persistent thought that keeps going through my head is' date=' Who's running the asylum?

That's been one of the greatest problems with this organization for a long time. When the players start controlling how you play and practice then the head coach has lost control and continuity. Coach Shannahan is in the process of changing the overall culture of this organization and I admire his tenacity. He was handed a team that has great talent, but some of that talent was not in my opinion team oriented.

Just because you're the greatest at what you do doesn't make you the best at what you're doing. if you're going against the grain of what's best for the overall organization you're more of a hindrance than an asset. That stands true no matter what you're occupation is. For example; I may be a great tap dancer, but if my new boss wants me to slow dance because we'll get more done and improve my chances of success and job security, then I'm going to learn how to waltz.

In order to be successful everyone must be going in the same direction.[/quote']

Good post.

I'm going to quote and re-post a post of mine from another thread that I feel fits here. Its in response to McD5 saying that some of the players have already given up on Shanahan, to give it some context. But really, I think it has more to do with the whole "who's running the asylum" conversation, which I believe is important, especially in regards to the circus that this team has been over the years.

The players have spoken. You quit on them, now they have quit on you.

The players who really feel like this will be gone this offseason, and replaced by guys who WANT to win for their coach.

Do you think its a coincidence that our team leaders (other than McNabb), and longer tenured players, are the same guys who have been losing here for years, and not really being upset about it? I don't. That poisons a team.

Moss. Portis. Rabach. Even Cooley.

They all try to talk the talk, but none of them have the heart of a Phillip Daniels. Now that's a guy who deserves to help change this team's culture, too bad he's so old.

The players I listed will be the past "stars" of the Washington Redskins in the coming years, and I'm having a really hard time coming up with a reason to be upset about that. I just hope we get decent compensation for whoever we can on their way out. They have all been losing for years with no consequences here, and that doesn't die easily. Its probably not even their fault that they can't help turn this team around. They were doomed when Gibbs left, leaving a poisonous franchise behind to ruin these players.

They just don't have the heart to win, and that's a trained attitude, for the most part. I just think its too late to turn that around for this team's current vets.

So its time to go out with the old, and bring in the new.

I have confidence that Shanahan will do just that, and find players who are willing to fight their asses off for him. Guys like Trent Williams, whose work ethic and drive were questioned by draftniks everywhere. But Shanahan asked him if he'd be willing to work harder than he'd ever worked, to be the player he had the potential to be. He got Williams to buy in right there, and it seems to be working.

He'll continue to do that in future offseasons, shedding the players who don't have that in them, and bringing in those that do.

And, magically, you'll see that losing IS in fact an infection that needs to be isolated and cut out. And it takes more than one season to accomplish that.

Until then, you keep thinking its Shanahan, while the same guys go out there and lose games week after week.

You can put a lot of the losing on the past roster management of Vinny and Gibbs, and hell, even on the current roster management of Shanahan, if you wish. And you'd definitely have a strong case, and be partially right no matter which way you argued.

But there's a part of that losing that's just ingrained in this team...and I think that we'll see Shanahan continue to cut it out in the coming years.

[Commander PK]

^^^excellent post Connskins, and perfectly fits in with the intent I had in starting this thread.

[IrepDC]

It shouldn't always be coach vs. players. These are all grown men; it should be possible for the coach to work with his players, too. Just because you're "My way or the highway" all of the time, doesn't make you a good leader.

[Conn]

^^^excellent post Connskins, and perfectly fits in with the intent I had in starting this thread.

Thanks, Painkiller. I thought it would fit in here, and its something I hold pretty strong opinions about. Its also part of the reason why I'm so excited to see how this roster continues to develop this offseason. I'm predicting another year of huge roster turnover.

---------- Post added December-6th-2010 at 11:59 PM ----------

It shouldn't always It shouldn't always be coach vs. players. These are all grown men; it should be possible for the coach to work with his players, too. Just because you're "My way or the highway" all of the time, doesn't make you a good leader.

I don't think anyone's saying that. Tom Coughlin is a great example of that not working, before he changed, consciously, to better fit his team.

I think what's being argued by many of us is that there needs to be a hierarchy. Someone has to be in charge, that needs to be respected, and you can build an entire team around that. It leads to players actually being held accountable, which is what you're seeing with Haynesworth. Granted, that's an extreme case. But it will set an example for years to come, and you can see that the team is rallying behind Shanahan, and the other 52 members of the team, rather than with AH.

[Commander PK]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81cb3947/article/timing-of-mcdaniels-firing-allows-broncos-to-move-forward?module=HP_cp2

This is about the McDaniels firing, but I thought that a point made in this article had relevance here. Tim Tebow was McDaniels' project. A new coach is likely to want to use Tebow differently than McDaniels would have. Tebow may have to adjust his playing style to fit the next coaches vision for him.

Does anybody really see Tim Tebow causing a Haynesworth style disruption all next season in Denver if that happens?

---------- Post added December-7th-2010 at 12:04 AM ----------

Just because you're "My way or the highway" all of the time, doesn't make you a good leader.

it does if that's what a team needs to be successful over the long-term. An excellent example of this is New England. They were cellar dwellers for YEARS until Belichick came in and completely changed the culture of that franchise.

The Redskins need a a coach like Mike Shanahan. I also think Marty Shottenheimer would have really had some success here had he been left alone.

[redskin faithful]

No, It would incourage others to be divas. Discipline is needed to succeed.

[Destino]

Shanahan has said that he believes the 3-4 was the right way to go long-term for this team. Would they have implemented the 3-4 Defense in a different manner, had they seen how this season would progress. Who knows.

You glossed right over the "failure" part of this defenses implementation. I don't really care what the coaches likes, it has to work. Last in the league is never acceptable. Accountability isn't just for the players.

As for Haynesworth, his job is to play. He was paid millions of dollars to play a kids game, and he is contractually obligated to perform.

Do you think if Haynesworth was a laborer at a construction site, that he could get away with being insubordinate, because the foreman decides to change his responsibilities? Think about your job and my job. Can you stop working hard tomorrow because somebody in Human Resources decides to change your job description without your permission?

This isn't a construction site unlike an hourly worker he has a hefty contract. Like it or not that changes things and no one gets to change the rules after the thing is signed. Part of what that contract gives him is guaranteed money, lots of it, which in turn provides leverage. Ignore it, complain about it, and wish it away if you like but it is what it is. The guy is going to make a good deal of money no matter what and the front office knew this and his dislike for the 3-4 in advance of making the decisions they made. They didn't have the sack to cut him and lose all that money. Haynesworth stayed consistent to what he was PRIOR to signing and prior to this latest debacle. He is a known quantity, a total self obsessed douchebag, and a bad signing.

This entire circus is prevented by a team that doesn't change identity with each and every head coaching hire.

[Travdaskin]

If you have scrubs behind the guy (which we do) then confront the issue ONCE and if that doesn't work get rid of him. We keep confronting the issue and refuse to get rid of him. Regardless Shanahan is a bit of a prick who I think some players already don't like very much. A players coach would do wonders for this whole situation IMO...