Anyone who tries to argue that Albert Haynesworth is not a good DT is nuts. He is one of the best in the NFL - - when he plays hard. When he does not play hard, he is sub-standard. That is what you see if you focus on the line play during actual games.
Let me try to pose a question here for folks who have watched Redskins' games:
In 2008, the Redskins' defense was certainly better than average in the league. Forget stats for a moment; just recall what you saw on the field compared to other defenses last year. The Skins were not the best but they were better than many other teams.
There were no significant coaching changes between 08 and 09. The dreaded "scheme" is basically the same.
There were two significant additions to the defense from 08 to 09 - - Brian Orakpo and Albert Haynesworth.
There were a couple of injuries in 09, but not any that involved the removal of Pro Bowl level talent.
So, riddle me this:
If you take a really good DT - - some would say a monster who is the best DT in the NFL - - and add him to a very good defense and don't change coaching or scheme, how come the Redskins' defense in 2009 is not a dominant one?
Why doesn't this year's defense simply shut down 90% of the offenses that dare to take the field against it?
Why doesn't the 09 defense do what the Ravens defense did in 02 or what the Steel Curtain used to do in the 70s - - win games by itself sometimes by holding teams to less than 6 points?
One possible answer is this one:
That great DT the Skins added doesn't play hard enough of the time to make them significantly bvetter than they were with a significantly less talented player at DT last year who went 100% on every snap.
I don't
know if that is the answer - - but it is possible.