Wrong In Every Concievable Way

JoeBucsFan is reporting that Roy Cummings said this yesterday on the Miller and Mouton radio show:

Miller & Moulton: Albert Haynesworth is two years and $9 million total for this year and next year, and he clearly wants to play defensive end in a 4-3. And when he’s motivated and playing defensive end in a 4-3, or even tackle but moves to end in pass rushing situations, he is a force. Does that make any sense at all [for the Bucs]?. …It’s a need. He’ll be motivated. Does that make any sense at all?

Roy Cummings: It makes a great deal of sense and here’s why: Don’t forget. The Buccaneers were the team that offered Albert Haynesworth more money than anybody else in the NFL last year. A lot of people forget that – conveniently want to ignore that fact. … You know what, I think it makes all kinds of sense. It’s a ballsy move. I don’t know if he’s going to do it. They do want to be young here more than anything. But you know what, if Stylez White can’t wake up in these last two preseason games and show them what he’s got, why not? Go give it a shot. I mean, money really is not an issue. People don’t want to believe that here. Everybody, you know, on your end of things here in Tampa Bay wants to keep talking about money here and money there and how much the Glazers are or are not spending. I can tell you right now, if they think can get Albert Haynesworth, and it ends up becoming a wash in terms of what the payroll is, they’ll do it. And they’ll go out and get him. And you know what, he’ll make the team a better football team in a hurry.

Now I don't want to seem too harsh here but that is maybe the dumbest scenario I have heard floated in a very very long time. Lets dissect this from the top.

First the contention is that Albert Haynesworth, he of 350 pounds plus and questionable work ethic, is going to come here and play defensive end? Really?!

Maybe Roy hasn't noticed but we play a get up the field, zone blitzing defense predicated on everyone hauling ass to the ball. And yeah, on occasion, you might even have to drop into coverage.
What in that description fits Haynesworth's profile?

Yeah he can play end in a 3-4 because its a totally different animal and involves a lot of two gapping and very little in the way of having to actually speed rush on an offensive tackle. And Haynesworth has never played defensive end on any kind of regular basis his entire career.

And lets think on this one. The Bucs let Chris Hovan, a GREAT locker room guy, go because he made too much money for his level of production and because of his age. Well Haynesworth wasn't much better last year in terms of production, he's a terrible locker room guy, and he's also no spring chicken going into his 9th season. And don't forget the money he is still owed on that huge free agent contract will have to be paid by the Bucs if they trade for him. And Cummings can say what he wants, the Bucs only allowed the fans to come to one week of training camp because of cost concerns AND they still refuse to sign a veteran backup quarterback even though Josh Freeman is hurt.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

And seeing as how the fact remains that even if Haynesworth was to come in here with a cape on and be super defensive end guy we probably wouldn't be contending for the playoffs, what exactly would be the motivation to bring him in? So he could poison the rest of our young defensive line with his me first attitude?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not even just talking about the situation with Shanahan where I feel like there is a helluva lot of blame to go around. I'm saying try to google an article where a teammate had good things to say about Haynesworth as a leader. You won't find it. A decent player at times? Yes. A leader though? Hell no. Its not something he has ever done but I guess maybe Mark Dominik was just joking around when he talked about how he wanted to build this team with youth and character.

So he doesn't fit scheme wise, attitude wise, or compensation wise. But hey, other than that he's PERFECT!

The best part of this imagined scenario is where we trade Michael Clayton for Haynesworth straight up. I mean right now we couldn't beg most teams to take Clayton off our hands but the Redskins are going to just give us Haynesworth for him? And then who are they going to find to play defensive line for them? Because make no mistake about it when the dust settles Haynesworth is still going to be out there starting at defensive end for the Redskins this year. Simply put because they don't have anybody else at that position with anything close to his ability.

I have to say I read this several times before even deciding to post about it because I wanted to try to see if maybe there was a hint of jest in Cummings' words. Like maybe he was just being facetious to make for good radio. But it really seems like he was dead serious. And I have to say that's very....unfortunate.

P.S. Its worth noting that after the fantastic free agent flops of Michael Clayton, Mike Nugent and now it would seem Derrick Ward, I doubt Mark Dominik regrets being beaten out for Albert Haynesworth's services last year for the numbers he was offering.

You Mean To Say He Has A Point?!

In an article ranking NFL defensive lines Jason Cole gets this right:

9. Washington Redskins: You can pretty much guarantee the Redskins will move down in the rankings between now and the start of the season because there’s about as much chance of tackle Albert Haynesworth(notes) opening the season in Washington as BP exec Tony Hayward has of taking up residency in Louisiana. That’s a pretty sad fact because if Haynesworth would get on board and coach Mike Shanahan would get over this idea of having Haynesworth play nose tackle, the Redskins line could be pretty good. Really, though, the Redskins would be better off scrapping the 3-4 altogether and playing 4-3. That’s their strength given their personnel and that would allow Haynesworth to line up next to Maake Kemoeatu(notes) in what would be a fearsome tackle combo. The addition of versatile Vonnie Holliday(notes) was a nice move, too.

See how easy it is to give actual analysis of the situation when you don't focus on how much money somebody is making or if people are calling them fat?

Of course the question now becomes will anyone start noticing these analyses of the Redskins that are starting to trickle through or will they just continue to mindlessly bash Haynesworth without ever taking a step back and taking a macro look at the situation?
On another note I will point out that I totally disagree with Cole's assessment about the Buccaneers' defensive ends as I firmly believe that rather than being a placeholder, Stylez White will have double digit sacks this year and be dominant at right end. But hey, being ranked #18 is pretty good considering the way he starts off his analysis.

The Realist

I called into my guy Bomani Jones' radio show this morning to talk about my take on the Albert Haynesworth situation and how the NFL and the Redskins have successfully manipulated the media and the fans on the issue. I definitely think its worth a listen. Warning, NSFW language.

Piggy backing on the things I said on air another story came out today about our local media and the way they handled a story from last week. Buccaneers GM Mark Dominik told the local beat writers last week that the team had the ability to fine left tackle Donald Penn for missing the mandatory mini camp as well as training camp and any regular season games he misses even though he hadn't signed his restricted free agent tender. This story didn't make sense to me on its face but just about every local sports media outlet reported it as fact. It was a curious assertion because it came just a few days before the deadline for Penn to either sign his tender or risk having it reduced to 110% of his salary from last year. Now I have already blogged about why I thought Penn should hold out until they offer him a long term deal, but him being fined would obviously complicate that calculation.

Well it turns out the story was bullshit. Absolute unequivical bullshit. And not one member of the local media fact checked the assertion before the deadline passed. Obviously if Penn's agent had fallen for the ploy and urged him to sign a tender based on false information it would have been on him for falling for the okie doke. But how sickening would it have been for him personally to sign the contract because of that threat only to subsequently find out he had been played? Better yet what kind of apology would any of those members of the media been able to offer for their role in perpetrating what could have been a VERY costly lie?

Its crazy because all of a sudden today all of the same media outlets are simultaneously reporting that they "discovered" that the assertion wasn't true. As if they all at the same time decided to do some fact checking. I will leave it up to you to decide how they all came to this revelation at once but the question remains, why in the hell didn't they fact check it to begin with when the assertion was made and before they "reported" it?

And that in a nutshell is the problem I have with members of the media and in this case specifically the sports media when it comes to reporting on NFL players. Instead of reporting nowadays they are instead doing more repeating than anything else. Hell if I was Dominik and I knew nobody would call me out for spreading false information I might do it too. What exactly is the downside for him if the media is willing to be his happy accomplice? People this is why I keep telling you to make up your own mind about these situations. Im not saying you should back the players on every issue, but at least be open to the fact that you may not be getting the whole or correct story.

You certainly didn't get the truth this time.

*To listen to my segment just click on the archives button

If You're Going To Call Someone Out, Go All The Way

I ran across a blog post about the Redskins that is probably not all that important in the grand scheme of things but I wanted to point out something interesting that happened inside of it.

The topic was Albert Haynesworth, or rather the topic was Rod Woodson and Solomon Wilcox calling Albert Haynesworth out on the NFL Network. Now this is pretty common place these days and I won't wade into the merits of those who think he is wrong for sitting out the offseason program and those who think he is well within his rights to do so. But I do want to examine something Wilcox said and then the blogger, Dan Steinberg's, fact check of it.

Solomon Wilcox made this claim:

"Can I just say this?" Wilcots requested. "Go back and play the soundbites at his press conference when he signed his contract. He said, 'I'm here to do whatever the Redskins need me to do to win.' Now they need him to play a zero technique, and he's kind of changing his game a little bit. But he did cash the check."

I could go all day arguing over whether Haynesworth taking the money means he should do whatever the team asks of him but instead Id like to focus on whether or not he actually said he would do "whatever the Redskins need me to do to win."

Steinberg took a look back at Haynesworth's presser and found these quotes.

"After talking to the coaches, I didn't talk about any money, I was talking to the coaches and seeing ˜How are you going to use me?' Regardless of the money, I wanted to see how they were going to use me, so I wouldn't just go someplace and be another guy. I wanted to be that same player, that dominant guy, and if you're going to use me that way, that's where I want to go....

"If you look at my game, I'm a player that goes straight forward. I'm a disruptive player, I take on the double-team, I free up other guys, and that's what I want to play like. I want to be able to attack my guy, make plays, and everybody to make plays off me. So that's what I want to do. I want to do the same thing I did in Tennessee, but now I'm surrounded by a star-studded cast in my defense here.

Now unless there is a part of Haynesworth's presser where he contradicted himself its pretty clear that from this section of what he said that how he would be used within the defense was a primary driver of where he would sign. Now Haynesworth could have just been blowing smoke, but what he said is what he said. It appears that Solomon Wilcox totally pulled that "whatever the Redskins need me to do" quote out of his ass and made it up out of whole cloth. Since Steinberg himself was the one performing the fact check on the quote I would have thought he would have used it to blast Wilcox and call him out. I was wrong.

Want to know what came after the quotes?

So that's at least part of what he said. Either way, Haynesworth's camp is sure losing this PR war.

Excuse me but uhmmm WHAT THE FUCK?!

Why go through the trouble of digging up the quotes to fact check Wilcox if you aren't going to point out that it refutes what Wilcox said? Especially when the words Wilcox attributed to Haynesworth seemed to only serve the purpose to try to make his refusal to give the Redskins new 3-4 scheme a try just that more egregious?

I can understand that maybe Steinberg was worried that by pushing back too hard he might be seen as defending Haynesworth but really it would just be him doing his job. If he is going to go through the trouble of fact checking Wilcox and in fact finding information that shows what Wilcox said was false, he can't then just back off and leave it to the reader to decide who was right and who was wrong. No matter if people are on Haynesworth's side or the Redskins' side of this argument some things are set out in black and white and if a member of the media lies or misspeaks its up to other members of the media to point that out. Just the same way that if Haynesworth lied about something pertaining to Solomon Wilcox or Rod Woodson I would expect the media to call him out as well. That, to me, is all a part of the job.

I just wish someone would start doing it...

The Curious Case Of The Redskins' Defense

In the last few months the Washington Redskins have made a lot of noise. They hired a future Hall Of Fame guy in former Denver Broncos head coach Mike Shanahan. They signed several big name former stars like Larry Johnson. They executed a blockbuster trade inside their own division for future Hall Of Fame quarterback Donovan McNabb and they own the 4th pick in this year's NFL Draft.

But not all of the noise has been positive. The guy they signed last year to be their franchise defensive player, Albert Haynesworth, has been in the news also for the wrong reasons. After signing a $100 million dollar contract last year and failing to live up to admittedly unreal expectations, Haynesworth came out and publicly disagreed with the Redskins' decision to switch to a 3-4 defense. Not only that, he vowed to stay away from voluntary activities and show up only to mandatory offseason practices, seemingly trying to force Washington to trade him.

Now there has been no shortage of sports pundits knocking him for this move. I admit its hard to feel empathy for a guy who just recently received an almost $20 million dollar roster bonus. But his point at the time is that he has never played nose tackle in a 3-4 and it wasn't something he felt comfortable trying to learn. I know most people would say for that amount of money he should be willing to learn how to drive the team bus. But considering the fact that the NFL truly IS a business there are also reasons to understand why he wasn't happy about the move. Yes he is getting paid an ungodly amount of money, but he also cares about his legacy. Just a few years ago he was being mentioned as a candidate for MVP of the whole league for his strong play with the Tennessee Titans and its highly likely that making a drastic move from a 3 technique to a head up nose tackle would further erode public opinion about his abilities.

I could go into a long dissertation about the pros and cons of him moving to nose tackle but that's not what this post is about. You see I happened to look at the Redskins' roster the other day and my interest was piqued. People have spent so much time knocking Haynesworth for his obstinacy and so much time focused on the holes that Washington needs to feel on their offensive line, that it seems nobody stopped to wonder just how switching to a 3-4 defense would affect a defense that was good enough to be ranked 10th in the league last year without much help from their offense.

Anthony Bryant

Phillip Daniels

Kedric Golston

Maake Kemoeatu

Anthony Montgomery

Greg Peterson

Are you familiar with any of the names on that list? Well if you are a Redskins fan you better get acquainted in a hurry because aside from Haynesworth those are ALL the guys on the current roster who are candidates to be the starting interior linemen in a 3-4 formation this year for the Redskins.

Know how many of them have played in a 3-4 defense in the last 3 years?

0

And through out their offseason spending spree the Redskins declined to being in even one guy who is experienced in playing in a 3-4 to at least help show the other guys the ropes.

To be sure it's not just a problem with the interior linemen. Two of the best performers last year for Washington, linebacker London Fletcher and defensive end Andre Carter, seemed to be poorly suited to a 3-4 defense. Yes, 2nd year player Brian Orakpo seems to be a perfect fit as a rush linebacker but as you look through the Redskins' roster who else seems to be a prototypical 3-4 defender?

But wait, its not just the players either.

Jim Haslett was hired to run the defense for Shanahan and as far as I can tell Haslett hasn't run a 3-4 defense since 1999 when he was the defensive coordinator for a Pittsburgh Steelers team that went 6-10. In the years since he has has stints as a defensive coordinator in both New Orleans and St Louis and in both of those stops he ran a 4-3. Now I'm not saying he can't do it, but its not exactly what you would think of as his forte.

So what gives?

Mike Shanahan never wasn't a 3-4 guy when he was a head coach out in Denver. His defenses consistently ran a 4-3 and generally were very good at it. I realize that lots of teams are transitioning to a 3-4 now for whatever reason but I would also remind people that both teams in this season's Superbowl ran a 4-3 and for that matter 3 of the final 4 teams ran a 4-3.

I readily admit that I personally prefer a 4-3 defense having played in that scheme most of my career, but by the same token I am a defensive scholar and with the right personnel I also know the havoc you can create with a 3-4. In this case however it would seem that the Redskins have round pieces that they are trying to stuff into square holes.

And lest you believe that the Redskins will use the draft to give their defense the extreme make over treatment, I would remind you that they only have 4 picks in the whole draft at the moment with no 2nd nor 3rd round pick at all.

At the moment Washington is in many ways blessed to have Haynesworth causing such a ruckus over playing nose tackle. It gives sports pundits a target to throw darts at and keeps them distracted. But what will happen after the draft is over and the smoke has cleared and Haynesworth is either traded or welcomed back into the fold? What happens when other people start noticing the obvious deficiencies I have just exposed? What happens if or when the Redskins take the field next year and instead of their offense being the weak link, its their once stout defense that can't stop anybody?

All I can say is stay tuned....

*Update: It turns out the Redskins made a big splash free agent signing yesterday signing former Ravens, Texans, Saints, Seahawks and Jets defensive lineman Howard Green to compete for the nose tackle position. FINALLY, a guy who has actually played in a 3-4, now the sky's the limit

If you aren't sure, yes that's sarcasm oozing through this update. You might think that the Redskins signing a guy to compete for a starting job off of a mini-camp tryout would be a HUGE red flag for the rest of the media to take notice of the state of their defense.

Guess we shall see...