Saturday, April 17, 2010

One Year In, And It is Called the Haynesworth Debacle

Charles Robinson of Yahoo Sports has an article detailing all the ways the Redskins made love to the pooch when they signed Albert Haynesworth in the way that they did.  

It is an interesting look, with insights from a half-dozen NFL executives.  It is interesting for legitimate reasons that the Redskins really truly did screw up, and it is also a look into what NFL executives consider negatives.

I consider this quote to be hilariously hypocritical, but it is here in the context of the article that this is considered a genuine reason to reduce the value of a player:  " Add it up and you had a talented player who appeared to be motivated by money and wasn’t afraid to sound off about the message or direction of the team that employed him."

Oh noes!  An employee with opinions and who is motivated by his salary?  That sounds like EVERY EMPLOYEE EVER.

But that said, the Washington Drunken Savages clearly screwed up, with a ridiculously front-loaded contract.  Almost a third of the $100 million dollars (which is a comically large amount to begin with) has already been paid out.   

It is an interesting read, if somewhat painful for us Washington fans.  


WilburC_Custis said...

Actions speak louder than words. ........................................

Andrew Wice said...

Big BM is right to point out that these criticisms are coming from NFL executives, not coaches or players.

The perception that Haynesworth was supposed to produce $100 million worth of sacks is idiotic. He's an interior lineman who crushes the pocket. The DE who lined up with him (Carter and Orakpo) both recorded 11 sacks, and the team had more pressure than they've had in a long time.

The wisdom of the deal, and Haynesworth motivations, are legitimate considerations. But the exec who said the contract was bad because it "empowered" Haynesworth is tipping his hand. It sounds rather Monty Burns-ish.

Washington has now signed two good NTs, so if Haynesworth returns (and his contract pretty much makes him untradeable) he'll be working from the DE spot ... but in a 3-4, that's not so different from DT in a 4-3.

The big gaping hole in our defense is an ILB to complement Fletcher. Teams will relish the chance to run away from London "Tackle Machine" Fletcher, so a shoddy ILB just won't cut it.