Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: RedskinsInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS
Posted at 2:30 PM ET, 01/ 3/2011

Vonnie Holliday will remain part of labor talks

By Barry Svrluga

Vonnie Holliday completed his 13th NFL season - and first with the Redskins - on Sunday. Now, even though he signed a two-year contract with Washington prior to 2010, the veteran defensive lineman must decide if he wants to return for a 14th year.

"You always consider retirement, every year," Holliday said. "Like I said, a lot goes into it. A lot with the family - I've been very blessed and fortunate to still be around and to be considering playing another year. I felt like at the end of the season I finished strong and have put myself in a situation where if, so be it -- after talking with my family and some soul-searching myself -- if I can go out and put my body through this again next year and mentally go through the process, that I can do that."

Holliday played in 15 games as a defensive end in defensive coordinator Jim Haslett's new 3-4 scheme and made two starts. He was in on 29 tackles and had 2-1/2 sacks, and could be a viable backup next season. He will turn 36 in December.

Regardless of whether he plays, though, Holliday will have an important role for his teammates because he is the Redskins' representative to the players' union. Holliday, who has served as a player rep in both Miami and Denver, will be in Washington Jan. 18 for a meeting with some first-time player reps. All have their eye on the continuing negotiations with management for a new collective bargaining agreement.

"I'm in this labor negotiations till the end," he said. "There's no doubt about it. That is a priority for me. These guys have elected me as their spokesperson or their voice, and so this is very important to me, because it's very important to our players, and I'm still a player. This also affects me even if I go into retirement. This goes back to retired players as well, so yeah, this is something I'll be involved with hopefully for a long time."

By Barry Svrluga  | January 3, 2011; 2:30 PM ET
Categories:  collective bargaining negotiations  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Andre Carter does not believe he'll be back
Next: Redskins trying to learn how to win close games

Comments

6-10 is 6-10 BUT

...I'd rather be 6-10 with Ryan Torain, Brandon Banks, Anthony Bryant, Kevin Barnes, Anthony Armstrong than with Clinton Portis, Antwan Randle-El, Mark Brunell, Brandon Lloyd, Adam Archuleta and Trung Candidate.

Posted by: rickyroge | January 3, 2011 2:36 PM | Report abuse

too bad for all that Andre didn't get traded before the 2010 season.

He was top 10 in both sacks and tackles for DEs in 2009, great team guy, great attitude and takes great care of himself. He was a valuable guy.

But instead of trading him for value, we tried to put the round peg in the square hole and it didn't work.

Everyone lost in the deal.

Posted by: zcezcest1

No, Zeke, you got it wrong. They couldn't trade him because no one wanted to pay the salary that he was due under his contract. He was untradable. He had no value to us except as a player.

Posted by: beep-beep

Yeah, a guy who is top 10 in sacks is untradable. After all, who'd want a DE who can sack a QB?

Posted by: zcezcest1 | January 3, 2011 2:40 PM | Report abuse

OK, after watching about ten minutes of youtube highlights of the Gabbert dude, I am officially in love with him.

Charley Casserly was the 1st one I heard say his name a week ago saying he would blow up fast in Mock Drafts...and it seems to be happening now....

I think I would take him ahead of Cam Newton and Luck......Mallet has Ryan LEaf written all over him....

And he hopefully should be available at #10. DE or QB with the #10 pick seems like the only possibility......

Posted by: 4thFloor | January 3, 2011 11:57 AM

Need a QB who will still be available @ #10?

Why not get the guy who they say has Chase Daniels' skills with an NFL size body?

Blaine Gabbert.

Posted by: 4thFloor | January 3, 2011 12:57 PM

After watching 10 mins, You're officially in love with him? You'd love any player then..Dennis Morris, anyone

You would take him ahead of Newton and Luck? Insane

You hope he will be available at #10? Of course he will, probably available at #42. Also you take 3-4 OLB ahead of 3-4 DE space eaters. Pass rush is the premuim.

And then you're last post was preposterous...

Draft a guy that has Chase Daniels skill set at #10?? Chase Daniels skill set was such that he went undrafted..

Chase Daniels threw for 12,000+ YDs and 100 TDs in 3 YRs

Gabbert threw for 6,800 and only 40 TDs while only being a fulltime starter for 2 YRs

For an apples to apples comparison since they both played in the same offense, look at what would be CD's final season vs BG if he left early

Gabbert 301 comp 475att 3186yds 63.4% 6.71ypa 68lg 16TDs 9int 23sacks 127.03rat

Daniels 385comp 528att 4335yds 72.9% 8.21ypa 80lg 39TDs 18int 15sacks 159.44
rat

He'll target Locker in the 1st because Luck and Newton will be off the board or Ponder/Devlin in the 2nd. He's looking for a QB with the athleticism to run his offense. That means no to Mallett, Gabbert, or Dalton.

Posted by: Diesel44 | January 3, 2011 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, a guy who is top 10 in sacks is untradable. After all, who'd want a DE who can sack a QB?

Posted by: zcezcest1 | January 3, 2011 2:40 PM | Report abuse
-------------------------

He had a no trade clause. Moving on...

Posted by: mattsoundworld | January 3, 2011 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, a guy who is top 10 in sacks is untradable. After all, who'd want a DE who can sack a QB?

Posted by: zcezcest1 | January 3, 2011 2:40 PM

Go back and look at the bonuses the guy was due. Who would want a DE at those prices? And, don't forget about the no-trade clause in his contract.

Posted by: beep-beep | January 3, 2011 2:46 PM | Report abuse

6-10 is 6-10 BUT

...I'd rather be 6-10 with Ryan Torain, Brandon Banks, Anthony Bryant, Kevin Barnes, Anthony Armstrong than with Clinton Portis, Antwan Randle-El, Mark Brunell, Brandon Lloyd, Adam Archuleta and Trung Candidate.

Posted by: rickyroge | January 3, 2011 2:36 PM


Interesting perspective... so would you rather get knocked out by Vitali Klitschko or Wladimir Klitschko?

Posted by: Alan4 | January 3, 2011 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, a guy who is top 10 in sacks is untradable. After all, who'd want a DE who can sack a QB?

Posted by: zcezcest1 | January 3, 2011 2:40 PM

Go back and look at the bonuses the guy was due. Who would want a DE at those prices? And, don't forget about the no-trade clause in his contract.

Posted by: beep-beep

He knows he's not a good fit for the 3-4, so he knows he's best moving on. He'd waive the no-trade for the right destination. People put in a no-trade clause so they don't get sent to Buffalo.

As for prices? Tell me how did his paycheck compare to the other guys who were top 10 in sacks?

Elvis Dumervil, Freeney, Woodley, Jared Allen, Will Smith, Trent Cole, Orakpo, Ware, Peppers

Yeah, Andre's contract was so much more than the other guys ... who'd want that?

Posted by: zcezcest1 | January 3, 2011 2:54 PM | Report abuse

6-10 is 6-10 BUT

...I'd rather be 6-10 with Ryan Torain, Brandon Banks, Anthony Bryant, Kevin Barnes, Anthony Armstrong than with Clinton Portis, Antwan Randle-El, Mark Brunell, Brandon Lloyd, Adam Archuleta and Trung Candidate.

Posted by: rickyroge | January 3, 2011 2:36 PM


Interesting perspective... so would you rather get knocked out by Vitali Klitschko or Wladimir Klitschko?

Posted by: Alan4 | January 3, 2011 2:51 PM

No he would rather be 6-10 with young cheap guys that can get better, then old expensive guys who are getting worse.

Posted by: Flounder21 | January 3, 2011 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Andre's contract was so much more than the other guys ... who'd want that?

Posted by: zcezcest1 | January 3, 2011 2:54 PM

Well, apparently no one wanted it. Why, who do you think wanted to pay the guy that much?

Posted by: beep-beep | January 3, 2011 2:57 PM | Report abuse

I don't know 4th, I think Luck, Ponder, and Devlin will succeed and the rest will fail.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | January 3, 2011 2:21 PM

To be honest, it all depends where they land......

@Diesel - His stats don't compare, but if Chase Daniels was 6'5", he would have def gone in the 1st round. This Gabbert dude has the accuracy and the confidence to throw the ball into some tight spots.....And watching the tape speaks more than the stats put up in college games IMHO...That's why after 10 minutes of youtube, I am sold.....You should watch too.....

I'll admit I haven't paid any attention to him until today, but the guy looks like the truth, and I'd be almost willing to gaurentee he goes in the 1st round....where?...TBD.....but prob top half.

He's a junior as well.....

Posted by: 4thFloor | January 3, 2011 2:59 PM | Report abuse

No he would rather be 6-10 with young cheap guys that can get better, then old expensive guys who are getting worse.

Posted by: Flounder21 | January 3, 2011 2:55 PM |

Dude - we needs to sub out "guys" in you post and sub in diff words for it to be better.

He would rather be 6-10 with young cheap subs that can get better than old expensive stars who are getting worse.

Posted by: ArcticCat | January 3, 2011 3:06 PM | Report abuse

No he would rather be 6-10 with young cheap guys that can get better, then old expensive guys who are getting worse.

Posted by: Flounder21 | January 3, 2011 2:55 PM

I agree with that sentiment (not really caring how much the players cost as long as they perform), but it's not obvious from the list.

Trung Canidate was only 26 years old when he played with the Skins, BLloyd was 25 years old when he was here (and he seems to have gotten better since he left). They both underperfomed in a Skins uni.

DMac5 fits your description of old and expensive better than anybody on the list.

Clinton Portis is only 29 years old now and definitely earned his pay up until about 2 years ago.

Posted by: Alan4 | January 3, 2011 3:10 PM | Report abuse

How awesome was that fashion statement that Favre made on the last day of his prof football career? A watch cap on top of a baseball cap! Goddamny!

Posted by: ArcticCat | January 3, 2011 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: 4thFloor | January 3, 2011 2:59 PM

I have watched. However I've watched actual games and not youtube highlights. He was a 5 star recruit coming out of HS and just 16 TDs this YR in a spread offense is pathetic. I've watched him since last YR when he looked like a legit prospect but he would benefit from a another YR in school to work on his accuracy and mechanics.

Posted by: Diesel44 | January 3, 2011 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Andre's contract was so much more than the other guys ... who'd want that?

Posted by: zcezcest1 | January 3, 2011 2:54 PM

Well, apparently no one wanted it. Why, who do you think wanted to pay the guy that much?

Posted by: beep-beep

I'd guess that 5-8 teams would have been interested in getting Carter.

Most guys who are top 10 in sacks are getting $8mil and up -- Carter was half that price.

He'd have been an upgrade at one DE spot or the other for about 25 teams.

And yet, you can't see any value?

It never fails to amaze me how some people think our guys, no matter how good they are, just aren't worth anything. Carter was a flat out stud in 2009 -- I know he was top 10 among DEs in sacks (top 10 in the league) and pretty sure he was also top 10 among DEs in tackles and fumble recoveries.

Its all on Shanahan for not trading him when he had value.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | January 3, 2011 3:12 PM | Report abuse

I'll admit I haven't paid any attention to him until today, but the guy looks like the truth, and I'd be almost willing to gaurentee he goes in the 1st round....where?...TBD.....but prob top half.

Posted by: 4thFloor | January 3, 2011 2:59 PM |

Neither him nor Locker impressed in their bowl games. If he does go in 1st round it is because the need exceeds the supply, not because he is a true 1st rounder.

Posted by: ArcticCat | January 3, 2011 3:20 PM | Report abuse

He'd waive the no-trade for the right destination. People put in a no-trade clause so they don't get sent to Buffalo.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | January 3, 2011 2:54 PM | Report abuse
----------------------------

They also put in no trade clauses to avoid getting kicked off a team which just hired Mike Shanahan, the OC of the best offense from the previous year, an experienced DC with designs on emulating the best Ds in the league, traded for a perennial top 10 QB from a division rival, and retained the beefcake (FatBert) which enabled this pointless discussion about 'Top 10 DE value'

Posted by: mattsoundworld | January 3, 2011 3:22 PM | Report abuse

It never fails to amaze me how some people think our guys, no matter how good they are, just aren't worth anything. Carter was a flat out stud in 2009 -- I know he was top 10 among DEs in sacks (top 10 in the league) and pretty sure he was also top 10 among DEs in tackles and fumble recoveries.

Its all on Shanahan for not trading him when he had value.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | January 3, 2011 3:12 PM | Report abuse
---------------------------------------

And it never fails to amaze me how some people think the rest of the league is completely blind to the fact that having Carter/Haynesworth/Orakpo just might inflate some statistics.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | January 3, 2011 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, a guy who is top 10 in sacks is untradable. After all, who'd want a DE who can sack a QB?

Posted by: zcezcest1 | January 3, 2011 2:40 PM | Report abuse
-------------------------

He had a no trade clause. Moving on...

Posted by: mattsoundworld |

And he'd have likely waived it for a chance to play in a 4-3 with a contending team. BUT I suspect Shanahan and Haslett, with typical football coach ego believed THEY could make him a first rate 3-4 LB, despite his issues in SF.

Now the team loses a class act with 4-3 skills to remain in their ineffective 3-4.

I don't like Haynesworth personally, but he's likely had a better season if the 'skins had stuck with the 4-3.

Posted by: TheCork | January 3, 2011 3:37 PM | Report abuse

He was a 5 star recruit coming out of HS ...

Posted by: Diesel44 | January 3, 2011 3:11 PM |

The 5 stars was from Rival. Scouts gave him a 83 grade and ranked him #5 QB in his class which works out to 4 star rating at best.

Posted by: ArcticCat | January 3, 2011 3:37 PM | Report abuse

OMG we are arguing which QB to take. NOOOOOO

Time to learn and adapt. No to a QB, any serviceable ones will be gone. And we need to build up from the inside out. If it aint an oline or a dline im pissed. Luck and Neewton are gone by then.
Jake Locker, F that. dude won like 13 games in FOUR years in college. Dont give me that UW crap either. I want winners no losers.

Posted by: Stu27 | January 3, 2011 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Jake Locker, F that. dude won like 13 games in FOUR years in college. Dont give me that UW crap either. I want winners no losers.

Posted by: Stu27 | January 3, 2011 3:38 PM |


Thank you Mr. Singletary.

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | January 3, 2011 3:41 PM | Report abuse

I don't like Haynesworth personally, but he's likely had a better season if the 'skins had stuck with the 4-3.

Posted by: TheCork | January 3, 2011 3:37 PM |

He would have had a better season if he'd made half an effort to play in the 'Skins defense, whether it was 4-3 or 3-4. His bad season is on him, not on the coaching staff.

Posted by: beep-beep | January 3, 2011 3:43 PM | Report abuse

It never fails to amaze me how some people think our guys, no matter how good they are, just aren't worth anything. Carter was a flat out stud in 2009 -- I know he was top 10 among DEs in sacks (top 10 in the league) and pretty sure he was also top 10 among DEs in tackles and fumble recoveries.

Its all on Shanahan for not trading him when he had value.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | January 3, 2011 3:12 PM | Report abuse
---------------------------------------

And it never fails to amaze me how some people think the rest of the league is completely blind to the fact that having Carter/Haynesworth/Orakpo just might inflate some statistics.

Posted by: mattsoundworld

After all, some guys just fluke into having good season!!

Teams like Chi, DET, ATL and NO would have seriously considered Carter. Chi would have loved a guy Carter to pair with Peppers, ATL has one guy (with an injury history) who can provide a pass rush, a second would have been a big help. DET has Suh and you'd want solid vets around him to help him grow. Gregg Williams coached Carter here.

Not hard to find teams that would look at Andre and see plenty of value.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | January 3, 2011 3:44 PM | Report abuse

I don't like Haynesworth personally, but he's likely had a better season if the 'skins had stuck with the 4-3.

Posted by: TheCork | January 3, 2011 3:37 PM |

Even though Haynie wasn't his 2008 self in 2009 stat-wise, they say that Carter and Osakpo picked up glittery stat #s because of all the OL attention that went to containing Haynie. If that were true then anybody looking to acquire Carter would discount any of his stat #s. So that pretty much undermines the claim that he would have been good trade bait.

Posted by: ArcticCat | January 3, 2011 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Teams like Chi, DET, ATL and NO would have seriously considered Carter. Chi would have loved a guy Carter to pair with Peppers, ATL has one guy (with an injury history) who can provide a pass rush, a second would have been a big help. DET has Suh and you'd want solid vets around him to help him grow. Gregg Williams coached Carter here.

Not hard to find teams that would look at Andre and see plenty of value.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | January 3, 2011 3:44 PM | Report abuse

You know Z... now that you mention it, Chicago seems to be the new FA landing spot. They might give up something for Carter.

Posted by: iH8dallas | January 3, 2011 3:51 PM | Report abuse

I don't like Haynesworth personally, but he's likely had a better season if the 'skins had stuck with the 4-3.

Posted by: TheCork | January 3, 2011 3:37 PM |

He would have had a better season if he'd made half an effort to play in the 'Skins defense, whether it was 4-3 or 3-4. His bad season is on him, not on the coaching staff.

Posted by: beep-beep | January 3, 2011 3:43 PM |

Agreed. Haynesworth possesses an established pattern of laziness going back to his high school days. Once he got his ride to TN, he mailed it in (per players on his own team). Once he knew at TN he was going to be a pro, he mailed it in. In the pros, once he blew up in his contract year, he knew he wouldn't ever have to bust his butt again.

The thing with lazy people is that they can always identify what they believe to be a 'loophole'.

In this case, Haney and his agent heard the Skins new DC would switch to a 3-4. I envision them both throwing up their hands, smiling and saying, "That's our out!" We didn't sign up for THAT.

Hate to break it to you fools, 4-3 or 3-4, Haney wasn't going to play anyway.

You know he was in the 4-3 last year, how'd that work out? The dude quit at 12:01a.m. on the opening of free agency in '08 when he signed the 'Skins 100 deal.

Forget Haney. He was done before he ever stepped foot in DC (or MD or VA).

Next?

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | January 3, 2011 3:52 PM | Report abuse

No he would rather be 6-10 with young cheap guys that can get better, then old expensive guys who are getting worse.

Posted by: Flounder21 | January 3, 2011 2:55 PM |

Dude - we needs to sub out "guys" in you post and sub in diff words for it to be better.

He would rather be 6-10 with young cheap subs that can get better than old expensive stars who are getting worse.

Posted by: ArcticCat | January 3, 2011 3:06 PM | Report abuse

No he would rather be 6-10 with young cheap guys that can get better, then old expensive guys who are getting worse.

Posted by: Flounder21 | January 3, 2011 2:55 PM

I agree with that sentiment (not really caring how much the players cost as long as they perform), but it's not obvious from the list.

Trung Canidate was only 26 years old when he played with the Skins, BLloyd was 25 years old when he was here (and he seems to have gotten better since he left). They both underperfomed in a Skins uni.

DMac5 fits your description of old and expensive better than anybody on the list.

Clinton Portis is only 29 years old now and definitely earned his pay up until about 2 years ago.


Posted by: Alan4 | January 3, 2011 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for coming to the rescue Flounder 21...but let me clarify my point.

We gave a pick and new contract to Brandon Lloyd

Clinton Portis had guarunteed money and the ear of the owner

Trung Canidate sucked

How many years have we said WE NEED TO FIND YOUNG, CHEAP TALENT TO DEVELOP???? So what if they're subs...where have you been over the last 10 years. We've had ZERO depth and ZERO youth...remember Pete Kendall and John Jansen and Randy Thomas???

I'm saying I'd rather go 6-10 with young "SUBS" than 6-10 with overpriced FA's that HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID!!!

Posted by: rickyroge | January 3, 2011 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Not hard to find teams that would look at Andre and see plenty of value.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | January 3, 2011 3:44 PM |

So, what you're saying is that you don't know of a single team that made an offer for the guy and it's Shanahan's fault for "fitting a square peg in a round hole"? This is why Zeke's Unique Perspectives are unique. No one else can agree with them.

Posted by: beep-beep | January 3, 2011 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Some of ya'll need to stop being scared to draft a QB...

We've had:
Jason Campbell (DRAFTED)

Other than that we've had other people's garbage...let's peruse the list, shall we?

Donovan McNabb
Danny Wuerfell
Shane Matthews
Jeff George
Tony Banks
Todd Collins
Rex Grossman
_______________ fill in blank here!

EVALUATE ONE! DRAFT ONE and be SMART ABOUT IT!

Posted by: rickyroge | January 3, 2011 3:59 PM | Report abuse

EVALUATE ONE! DRAFT ONE and be SMART ABOUT IT!

Posted by: rickyroge | January 3, 2011 3:59 PM | Report abuse

I feel this same way about the Oline and Dline.

Posted by: Stu27 | January 3, 2011 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Donovan McNabb
Danny Wuerfell
Shane Matthews
Jeff George
Tony Banks
Todd Collins
Rex Grossman
_______________ fill in blank here!

EVALUATE ONE! DRAFT ONE and be SMART ABOUT IT!

Posted by: rickyroge | January 3, 2011 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Well said ricky. But no love for Mark Brunell?

Posted by: iH8dallas | January 3, 2011 4:07 PM | Report abuse

And he'd have likely waived it for a chance to play in a 4-3 with a contending team.

Posted by: TheCork | January 3, 2011 3:37 PM | Report abuse
----------------------------------

As far as anyone knew, the Redskins were going to contend with Carter at OLB.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | January 3, 2011 4:11 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

© 2011 The Washington Post Company