Haynesworth = no show at mincamp

[grunt]

Quote: Originally Posted by ProfessaPackMan

And again, he said he was planning on skipping THAT as well, which is in his contract to attend. Otherwise, if all workouts were voluntary, then his comments he made earlier wouldn't be an issue.

The redskins would have a stronger case if he skipped mandatory sessions to suspend him. Big Al may get some if not all of his money back.

[JBH3]

Quote: Originally Posted by ProfessaPackMan

Worst signing ever? I wouldn't go that far because at least when he wanted to, there was no debate about the impact that he made out there. The problem was that he only WANTED to do it SOME of the time and not all of the time. Now as far as the actual contract itself, then yea that was awful and I said that when it first happened(time to play Bump a Thread)and folks were still trying to justify it for some reason SMH LOL

Worst signing ever in the context of they had not the pieces to contend, and sign a DT for a record breaking deal.

To use another Washingtonian deal that sort of mimics the same illogical pattern...

Why would the Nationals pay a rightfielder $100+Mil over 7 years when you do not have the pitching to compete, let alone the other pieces.

Why would you pay a DT a record breaking deal when (at the time) you had no QB, an OL in question, and no skill players to really speak of.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by JBH3

Worst signing ever in the context of they had not the pieces to contend, and sign a DT for a record breaking deal. To use another Washingtonian deal that sort of mimics the same illogical pattern... Why would the Nationals pay a rightfielder $100+Mil over 7 years when you do not have the pitching to compete, let alone the other pieces. Why would you pay a DT a record breaking deal when (at the time) you had no QB, an OL in question, and no skill players to really speak of.

Honestly, because even though it's a yearly trend to say how bad the Skins are, if we look over the last 5 or 10 years they've been no better or worse than average (made the playoffs a few times, have had top 5 defenses, have had a dominant RB in Portis for a while, etc.). If you add arguably the best DT in the NFL to a team with a top 5 defense that just didn't seem to get enough pressure and turnovers, that could make an average team good... then you draft the left tackle of the future and add a great leader in McNabb and you may have a contender in a couple of years.

Now the reality is they need A LOT of depth at many positions, especially oline, Big Al's off the field impact needed to be considered, and today's NFL isn't one that likes to wait a couple of years... so yes, it was definitely a bad signing. I just wanted to give a perspective (though shortsighted as stated) where it made some sense.

OT but the Nats example could have the same logic. Add a solid vet that can be a #3 starter and expect healthy years from Strasburg, Zimmerman and Hill and you've got a decent starting rotation... and that's THIS year. It can be built on moving forward. Bring in Harper and now Werth and even though they lose Dunn, the lineup still has a bit of bite too.

Like with Big Al, I agree with you... that's way too much money for someone like Werth, and things never go perfectly so they'll still have some issues that will keep them down unless other moves are made, but I can see how someone processed the deal in their head.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Quote: Originally Posted by grunt

The redskins would have a stronger case if he skipped mandatory sessions to suspend him. Big Al may get some if not all of his money back.

That's part of the reason why they suspended him. And as for the money, he's already got most of that paid to him, so I don't know why they(Skins)are even wasting their time over $800,000.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

Honestly, because even though it's a yearly trend to say how bad the Skins are, if we look over the last 5 or 10 years they've been no better or worse than average (made the playoffs a few times, have had top 5 defenses, have had a dominant RB in Portis for a while, etc.). If you add arguably the best DT in the NFL to a team with a top 5 defense that just didn't seem to get enough pressure and turnovers, that could make an average team good... then you draft the left tackle of the future and add a great leader in McNabb and you may have a contender in a couple of years. Now the reality is they need A LOT of depth at many positions, especially oline, Big Al's off the field impact needed to be considered, and today's NFL isn't one that likes to wait a couple of years... so yes, it was definitely a bad signing. I just wanted to give a perspective (though shortsighted as stated) where it made some sense. OT but the Nats example could have the same logic. Add a solid vet that can be a #3 starter and expect healthy years from Strasburg, Zimmerman and Hill and you've got a decent starting rotation... and that's THIS year. It can be built on moving forward. Bring in Harper and now Werth and even though they lose Dunn, the lineup still has a bit of bite too. Like with Big Al, I agree with you... that's way too much money for someone like Werth, and things never go perfectly so they'll still have some issues that will keep them down unless other moves are made, but I can see how someone processed the deal in their head.

Hmmm a certain somebody here was preaching this at the time. I wonder who that could've been?

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by ProfessaPackMan

Hmmm a certain somebody here was preaching this at the time. I wonder who that could've been?

Don't know if I can give you credit for that one, lol. People were hanging on tires to get on that bus. Seems like everyone but Snyder.