Quote:
Originally Posted by SFREDSKIN
What's going to be more devastating is if Haynesworth leaves via trade and we don't get an equal replacement.
|
Really? Consider 10 facts that provide indisputable proof that the Redskins will be just fine without Albert Haynesworth.
Fact 1: we were 4-12 with haynesworth playing his natural position as 4-3 DT.
Fact 2: Given that, Haynesworth alone likely wouldnt make the teams final record any better playing out of position in the 3-4.
Fact 3: The redskins generally had top 10 defenses for years without any semblence of a pass rush. Its our offense that is primarily to blame for our recent mediocrity.
Fact 4: Last year, 28 teams finished with a record better than the Redskins without Albert Haynesworth or an "equivalent" DT.
Fact 5: Every NFL team that has ever won a conference championship or superbowl has done so without Albert Haynesworth.
Fact 6: With or without Haynesworth, the defense doesn't have the personnel to run the 3-4. its probably going to be pretty bad whether he's on the team or not. Simply put, he won't make much of a difference to this team in 2010.
Fact 7: By hiring shanahan and trading for McNabb, we've signaled that we are going to become an offensive team. Unfortunately, we don't have a single starting quality tackle on our offense. Last time i checked, Albert Haynesworth does not play left or right tackle. he will not protect our franchise QB, donovan mcnabb. An offensive linemen acquired (directly or indirectly) as a result of trading Haynesworth could.
Fact 8: Albert Haynesworth is not Chuck Norris.
Fact 9: Albert Haynesworth is not Jack Bauer.
Fact 10: If Facts 1-7 do not convince you that the Redskins will do just fine without Haynesworth, read and meditate on Facts 8 and 9. There really is no arguing with them.