Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: dcsportsbog and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS
Posted at 1:51 PM ET, 12/ 8/2010

Ex-coaches back Shanahan on Haynesworth

By Dan Steinberg

While local analysts continue to debate whether Mike Shanahan or Albert Haynesworth was at fault in the local sports standoff of the decade, the fraternity of ex-NFL coaches seems lined up behind, shocker, the coach.

"The guy didn't show up for anything in the offseason, he didn't want to play in the 3-4 defense, I'm hearing he doesn't want to talk to the coach," Jon Gruden said on ESPN Radio. "Well, you know, life's too short. I mean, let's be honest. I know it's a big story, but if you don't want to play, don't play. And maybe the Redskins can rally together with some guys that really want to be there and want to turn the Washington Redskins around and move on. I think that's the only thing you can do. Life's way too short."

"It's what I call a stormy romance, that all of the sudden the umbrella broke and everybody got rained on," Herm Edwards said on the same network. "The problem is this, when you go back historically on Albert and watch him play, he's about a 25-play guy. Once his motor's running, he's very disruptive, he can do the things you want him to do, so he gets paid for that. For being a 25-play guy, for not being in shape for the most part, kind of playing in spurts. Well, they paid him for that, and then they brought him to Washington. Well guess what, we paid you all this money, now we want you to change. Not so fast. Why should I change? I've been a pretty good player. I've been a Pro Bowl player. I've played this way.

"There's a reason Jeff Fisher, going into his third contract, did not pay Albert Haynesworth. Jeff said I'm done with it. I don't want to see it any more....He becomes a distraction to your football team, and once the players turned on him, then it really becomes bad. So I think this thing was bad ball from the beginning. You knew what you were getting, you were gonna try to change a guy, you're not gonna change this guy. He's a 25-play guy, he can be disruptive when he wants to....I respect the guy when he plays hard, but now I'm getting the sense that does he like football, or does he like what football provides him. That's what I'm coming away with now."

By Dan Steinberg  | December 8, 2010; 1:51 PM ET
Categories:  Media, Redskins  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Brian Mitchell vs. Phillip Daniels, Part II
Next: When the Redskins lost by 73

Comments

I really don't believe that any serious football fan sides with Haynesworth. They may blame the Redskins for overpaying him. They may blame the Redskins for keeping him this long, once he decided to be a cancer on the team. But, Haynesworth needed to go. His contributions were nothing noteworthy(except for one play on the goal line against Chicago) and very infrequent. His physical endurance does not allow him to play four quarter. Good ridance. Let him be someone else's problem.

Posted by: 189AROD | December 8, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company