Haynesworth fails conditioning test

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Coaches should set their players up for failure more often. When I played football there was nothing nice about it. We ran drills till we puked, and we did it for free.

Really, it's a person by person case. Some are motivated by failure, others are motivated by rewards or successes.

No one, however, is motivated by stubborn ego-flexing, which is why it's hard for me to view this ordeal as a motivation concept.

I think Albert Haynesworth is motivated by fear of failure. He does not want to be known as the $100 million bust. And if his two choices are to be known as a bust, or a malcontent asshole who doesn't listen to outside opinions if it doesn't help him reach his goal of personal greatness -- I think it's obvious that Albert is less about the team than himself.

Naturally, you could see why Vinny loved this guy.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Really, it's a person by person case. Some are motivated by failure, others are motivated by rewards or successes.

No one, however, is motivated by stubborn ego-flexing, which is why it's hard for me to view this ordeal as a motivation concept.

I think Albert Haynesworth is motivated by fear of failure. He does not want to be known as the $100 million bust. And if his two choices are to be known as a bust, or a malcontent asshole who doesn't listen to outside opinions if it doesn't help him reach his goal of personal greatness -- I think it's obvious that Albert is less about the team than himself.

Naturally, you could see why Vinny loved this guy.

I don't necessarily think it is a preconceived motivational strategy, it's just the coach being a prick. All my football coaches were pricks too, and as players we just had to submit. To me that's all this is: a dominance game. The coach is the dominatrix and the players are the subordinates. You are right though, some people respond better to it than others.

Not all coaches are pricks -- each one has a different style. But, the prick approach is a valid one IMO.

[murphy196]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I don't necessarily think it is a preconceived motivational strategy, it's just the coach being a prick. All my football coaches were pricks too, and as players we just had to submit. To me that's all this is: a dominance game. The coach is the dominatrix and the players are the subordinates. You are right though, some people respond better to it than others.

Not all coaches are pricks -- each one has a different style. But, the prick approach is a valid one IMO.

Well, most of the time the pricks are the most successful.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

So I read this and started thinking....

Haynesworth, Shanahan exchange words after failed conditioning test | ProFootballTalk.com

All his actions are doing is building sympathy for Haynesworth, which makes Shanahan either a vindictive jerk... or an absolute genius. If Shanahan sensed that the locker room, following Fletchers lead, was turned against Haynesworth, what better way to get the teammates to embrace him than by asking him to do 10 times more than the rest of them, having him do it, and then failing him anyways? Strategery.