[SFREDSKIN]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

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.

After such a wonderful list, did you remember we also lost Cornelius Griffin. No Griffin, No Haynesworth, do you think Montgomery can step up? I like Golston and Alexander (moving to LB), the rest are question marks or too old (Daniels) for the NT position.