Haynesworth to the Patriots for a 5th rounder.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I think it's up for debate as to who is right or wrong. I know you like to proclaim yourself right like that ends the debate, but there were a couple of options Shanahan had and his choice was to cut our losses and get him out of our hair.

I don't think it should be underestimated how much the distraction factor plays in here. You could see that guys were clearly worn out talking about this last year and when Rak showed up to camp this year he basically said enough is enough, we can't have this again.

In order to truly move forward, I think it was best to get rid of all the distractions and all the things that handcuffed this team in the past. Whether it was poor attitudes, performance, work ethic, etc. One bad apple tends to spoil the bunch and AH was definitely rotten from that perspective.

I do agree, that's a significant cost. But did we read anything this whole offseason indicating that Albert was still going to pout for us this year like he did last year? Or did we just assume he would.

I didn't see anything. I read that he was in much better shape (which he appears to be if you see photos of him as a Patriot). I think there's a decent chance he was planning to come this year and at least partially move on.

I think the transition from malcontent to player who's finally falling in line was happening faster that we all think. There's no evidence to suggest that wasn't the case, just a bunch of assumptions.

But hey like I said, in the end if Shanahan puts together a good defense and we improve, then Albert's cap space will have been put to good use, and you can't fault the decision. So you're right, to be fair I can't declare myself right on this. Shanahan can render the argument moot with a successful season, and I definitely hope that happens.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I do agree, that's a significant cost. But did we read anything this whole offseason indicating that Albert was still going to pout for us this year like he did last year? Or did we just assume he would.

I didn't see anything. I read that he was in much better shape (which he appears to be if you see photos of him as a Patriot). I think there's a decent chance he was planning to come this year and at least partially move on.

I think the transition from malcontent to player who's finally falling in line was happening faster that we all think. There's no evidence to suggest that wasn't the case, just a bunch of assumptions.

But hey like I said, in the end if Shanahan puts together a good defense and we improve, then Albert's cap space will have been put to good use, and you can't fault the decision. So you're right, to be fair I can't declare myself right on this. Shanahan can render the argument moot with a successful season, and I definitely hope that happens.

There wasn't much of an indication last year he was going to pull the crap he did. He took the $21M bonus on the premise he would show up and play, and all he did was show up and suck his thumb. So I think based on last year it was a safe assumption things weren't going to get better.

Funny, based on that photo in his NE uniform he looks heavier than last year to me, and I thought I read some tweets about reporters saying he was looking bigger. I can't imagine during a lockout he did much to stay in good shape. He's just not that kind of guy.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I do agree, that's a significant cost. But did we read anything this whole offseason indicating that Albert was still going to pout for us this year like he did last year? Or did we just assume he would.
I didn't see anything. I read that he was in much better shape (which he appears to be if you see photos of him as a Patriot). I think there's a decent chance he was planning to come this year and at least partially move on.

I think the transition from malcontent to player who's finally falling in line was happening faster that we all think. There's no evidence to suggest that wasn't the case, just a bunch of assumptions.

But hey like I said, in the end if Shanahan puts together a good defense and we improve, then Albert's cap space will have been put to good use, and you can't fault the decision. So you're right, to be fair I can't declare myself right on this. Shanahan can render the argument moot with a successful season, and I definitely hope that happens.

Let's talk assumptions here. Was it reasonable to assume that AH would continue to be a big ass distraction?

First, AH hated Shanahan - that is well documented and he has not take one inch of it back. He made absolutely nothing in the way of concillatory gestures to the team, coach, fans. If he had (i.e "I was being a little intransigent last year, I may have been wrong in my approach"), we most certainly would have heard about it. Barring a true, come-to-Jesus moment, the AH/MS relationship was far to gone to be fixed given the personalities involved.

In light of this damaged relationship, I would suggest that unless AH completely submitted to the Shanny way, he would have been a distraction b/c media, fans, etc. would be looking for friction to blow out of proportion - every play would have been analyzed to determine if AH was truly playing in line. Given how bad things got, it was not going to be a "we kissed, made up and are now bestest pals" turnaround. The circus would have continued even if AH played well ("Now that AH is playing well on 3rd downs, do you see an expanded role for him? Why now? Why not?, etc.").

Even if you don't accept that AH playing well was not a necessary cure to the problem, is it reasonable to assume AH had changed the attitudes that contributed to the problem? I suggest no.

AH reporting to camp is not a concillatory gesture, it is merely minimal compliance and in keeping with his actions last year. He never - to my knowledge - said "I am not going to do that". He just gave half assed attempts when put in situations he didn't like. Unless there is something to suggest he changed his ways, going to camp is nothing more than a continuation of his passive-aggressive compliance.

Last year, AH's attitudes and actions contributed to the circus that was AH. While never refusing a "direct order", Haynesworth made comments, took actions and demonstrated in every possible way that Albert was going to do it Albert's way or no way. To date, AH has done nothing to disavow his behavior from last year.

In light of his prior year's affirmative actions and his failure to disclaim those actions and attitudes, the reasonable assumption is not that he had been reached and had a professional epiphany. Rather, the more reasonable assumption is that AH intended to continue being Albert and create the same distractions he did last year.

Dear God, did I just write all that on Fatal Bert? Damn you Schneed, you made my ham sandwich taste bad.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Let's talk assumptions here. Was it reasonable to assume that AH would continue to be a big ass distraction?

First, AH hated Shanahan - that is well documented and he has not take one inch of it back. He made absolutely nothing in the way of concillatory gestures to the team, coach, fans. If he had (i.e "I was being a little intransigent last year, I may have been wrong in my approach"), we most certainly would have heard about it. Barring a true, come-to-Jesus moment, the AH/MS relationship was far to gone to be fixed given the personalities involved.

In light of this damaged relationship, I would suggest that unless AH completely submitted to the Shanny way, he would have been a distraction b/c media, fans, etc. would be looking for friction to blow out of proportion - every play would have been analyzed to determine if AH was truly playing in line. Given how bad things got, it was not going to be a "we kissed, made up and are now bestest pals" turnaround. The circus would have continued even if AH played well ("Now that AH is playing well on 3rd downs, do you see an expanded role for him? Why now? Why not?, etc.").

Even if you don't accept that AH playing well was not a necessary cure to the problem, is it reasonable to assume AH had changed the attitudes that contributed to the problem? I suggest no.

AH reporting to camp is not a concillatory gesture, it is merely minimal compliance and in keeping with his actions last year. He never - to my knowledge - said "I am not going to do that". He just gave half assed attempts when put in situations he didn't like. Unless there is something to suggest he changed his ways, going to camp is nothing more than a continuation of his passive-aggressive compliance.

Last year, AH's attitudes and actions contributed to the circus that was AH. While never refusing a "direct order", Haynesworth made comments, took actions and demonstrated in every possible way that Albert was going to do it Albert's way or no way. To date, AH has done nothing to disavow his behavior from last year.

In light of his prior year's affirmative actions and his failure to disclaim those actions and attitudes, the reasonable assumption is not that he had been reached and had a professional epiphany. Rather, the more reasonable assumption is that AH intended to continue being Albert and create the same distractions he did last year.

Dear God, did I just write all that on Fatal Bert? Damn you Schneed, you made my ham sandwich taste bad.