Haynesworth Should Stay – Haslett Should Go


By now we all know that Albert Haynesworth is a major pain.  No doubt, he is.  But ask yourself this – would the Redskins have fared better against the Giants’ run game with Big Al in the game?  I submit the answer is ‘yes’.  Ask yourself something else – who forces a team to play a defense its personnel aren’t suited to play?  While you consider that, ask yourself how many times the Redskins’ defense appeared to be out-schemed?

I know, there were tons of missed tackles, and at times players blew assignments.  That’s on the players.  I also know that Jim Haslett, in spite of his accomplishments as a Linebacker with the Pittsburgh Steelers, hasn’t been labled a defense genuis or anything close there-to during his coaching career.  If the Redskins are to improve before the unemployment rate makes its way down to the 5% neighborhood, they’ll have to win largely with the personnel they have as they bring in new talent.  A switch to th3-4 might be fine in a couple years, but not with this group.

As for the Haynesworth situation, not starting him could have been sufficient.  The Redskins didn’t have to make him inactive to prove a point.  Even as I listened to Phillip Daniels support the coaches, it felt to me as if the situation could have been handled differently so as to not hurt the team.  I’m not crying tears for Haynesworth here – not at all.  I just want to see this team show some toughness on defense against its division rivals.

 I’ll leave you with one final question.  If the coaches didn’t feel the team is better off with Haynesworth than without him, why would he still be in DC?  I’m just sayin’. 

Tags: Albert Haynesworth Jim Haslett Phillip Daniels Washington Redskins

  • Scott Stewart

    As for your final question remember Haynesworth was not brought in by Allen, Shanahan or even Haslett for that matter.

    He is being paid a ton of money and to cut him would cost a lot to just let him go. I think they would work better in a 4-3 but it all comes down to players play and coaches coach and a 3-4 is the defense they want ran. My thing with it is if you get beat trying your hardest thats one thing but if you refuse to even try and give it your full effort than you are a problem case and Haynesworth is a problem case. You cant have the highest paid player on the team refusing to come to voluntaries and things of that nature it just is not a good example to allow to be set.

    I think slowly you will see the Skins bring in more players to fit the 3-4 now that they have made the change. Right now what we are getting to see is who may be able to fit in the defense and who cant fit so that way they can better address the needs of the team.

    Worst thing about the 3-4 is we really dont get to see Carter out there and we have lineman like Alexander playing linebacker. Dont get me wrong Alexander has done better than I thought he would but he can not be a long term option at linebacker he does not have the speed and athleticism to be out there

  • curtis

    Haslett’s first mistake was promising his boss that our roster could field an effective 3-4 team. Now we see an ineffective D. No, check that, a dysfunctional defense.

    Haslett could not tell truth to power. Or maybe that conversation wasn’t an available option? Either way I saw a good defense turn bad.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Haynesworth Should Stay – Haslett Should Go | Riggo's Rag | A Washington Redskins Blog -- Topsy.com