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’.