azbearsfan Posted December 6, 2010 Report Share Posted December 6, 2010 He might get cut this week. Would he be a good pickup? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted December 6, 2010 Report Share Posted December 6, 2010 YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! (as long as the Bears don't have to pick up his contract) If Lovie Smith's friendly approach could win over Albert, that would be a massive improvement at DT over any player on the roster. I'm sick of watching the Bears lose players who go elsewhere and do well with their second chance. I'd love to see it come around the other way for once. It might even rejuvenate or pressure Tommie to start playing like he should. Peppers - Tommie - Albert - Israel That would be the best DL in the NFL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted December 6, 2010 Report Share Posted December 6, 2010 I don't know...Haynesworth's playing lazy this season, and I'm sure Marinelli would hate that, but I do think a lot of his motivation problems might stem from not liking Jim Haslett's system. He didn't seem to have the same effort problems back when he was in Tennessee, where they just asked him to attack his gap and get in the backfield. Between playing for Marinelli, being on a winning team, and getting back to what he does best, maybe Haynesworth might find himself more motivated if he came to Chicago. I'm sure he'll want a lot of money if he hits the open market, but I don't know if he'll get it, considering how bad the stories out of Washington have been. Maybe he'd be willing to sign a prove-it deal that makes him a free agent for 2011 - something close to the vet minimum, but where Chicago can't franchise or transition-tag him. That way he can play his way back into a big contract with some other team, and the Bears get some help making a Super Bowl run in the meantime. Bottom line: if the Bears can sign him and think they can convince him to play to his ability, what would it hurt? Haynesworth and Peppers together would make for a dominant d-line, which would have to help Chicago's chances at a deep playoff run. They probably wouldn't be able to retain him long-term, but I could see him helping Chicago for the rest of 2010. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azbearsfan Posted December 6, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 6, 2010 I don't know...Haynesworth's playing lazy this season, and I'm sure Marinelli would hate that, but I do think a lot of his motivation problems might stem from not liking Jim Haslett's system. He didn't seem to have the same effort problems back when he was in Tennessee, where they just asked him to attack his gap and get in the backfield. Between playing for Marinelli, being on a winning team, and getting back to what he does best, maybe Haynesworth might find himself more motivated if he came to Chicago. I'm sure he'll want a lot of money if he hits the open market, but I don't know if he'll get it, considering how bad the stories out of Washington have been. Maybe he'd be willing to sign a prove-it deal that makes him a free agent for 2011 - something close to the vet minimum, but where Chicago can't franchise or transition-tag him. That way he can play his way back into a big contract with some other team, and the Bears get some help making a Super Bowl run in the meantime. Bottom line: if the Bears can sign him and think they can convince him to play to his ability, what would it hurt? Haynesworth and Peppers together would make for a dominant d-line, which would have to help Chicago's chances at a deep playoff run. They probably wouldn't be able to retain him long-term, but I could see him helping Chicago for the rest of 2010. I think I agree, if they could get him for a cost friendly deal, I think our system is more his speed. It would be a good addition and Melton could end up playing more on the outside. I saw last game he was playing both DT and DE similar to what Izzy used to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted December 6, 2010 Report Share Posted December 6, 2010 I doubt he could get in shape for this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted December 6, 2010 Report Share Posted December 6, 2010 Absolutely and unequivocally NO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitownman Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 Not sure I would trust the problems that Haynesworth has are behind him. If they brought him in and it appeared it would be worth the risk to sign him for the rest of the season then that may be a good thing. I like the idea of a front for as Pep, Haynesworth, Idonije and it would be a toss up for me between Melton & Toeaina which in turn would have to be arguably the best front four in the NFL for the rest of the season and would help even more with the rest of the "D." Then this may be worth the risk. Just do not need Haynesworth stepping on anyone any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearsFan1974 Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 I could go either way. Haynesworth would be a great sign but is he worth the trouble and the media circus to follow? I would rather the Bears get coverage due to their accomplishments than some overweight, overpriced clown drawing the attention. Our D-Line is playing well. We have brought pressure and stuffing the run. We don't need him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChileBear Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! (as long as the Bears don't have to pick up his contract) If Lovie Smith's friendly approach could win over Albert, that would be a massive improvement at DT over any player on the roster. I'm sick of watching the Bears lose players who go elsewhere and do well with their second chance. I'd love to see it come around the other way for once. It might even rejuvenate or pressure Tommie to start playing like he should. Peppers - Tommie - Albert - Israel That would be the best DL in the NFL. From your mouth to God's ears, YES! Why not? If the guy coudn't get motivated with this D, then he is no longer a football player. Just imagine it, we'd have a killer front four! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 From your mouth to God's ears, YES! Why not? If the guy coudn't get motivated with this D, then he is no longer a football player. Just imagine it, we'd have a killer front four! Getting Washington to continue paying him $20 million a season next year instead of cutting him isn't enough motivation for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 Getting Washington to continue paying him $20 million a season next year instead of cutting him isn't enough motivation for him. Perhaps getting cut and realizing he's about to be out of football (e.g. Pacman Jones) would be enough motivation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 Perhaps getting cut and realizing he's about to be out of football (e.g. Pacman Jones) would be enough motivation. He's already in that position this season and it hasn't done jack. Everyone knows he gets cut at the end of the year even if he's traded, and that the only reason he's still on that team is that it would have cost them $15 million or so to cut him at the start of the year. Maybe you take a flyer on him after the lockout for a very, very small deal. But more likely, someone like the Titans will offer him a couple million and he'll go back there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 Redskins suspended him 4 weeks without pay, which is an even better move for them than releasing him since it saves them a ton of money. Presumably now there will be a union challenge to the suspension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted December 8, 2010 Report Share Posted December 8, 2010 That might as well read "Redskins put Haynesworth on bench while they try to trade him". They are going to have one heck of a tough legal battle trying to bench him for four games without pay. Who else has ever done that? For what reason? Poor play? Any rookie lawyer would have a field day with that one. Just pick one of McNabb's bad games to start with. They're going to have to either cut him or pay him, or it will just get worse for them legally. From an organization standpoint, why would they even want this circus act around for the last four games? At this point it's clear they are not going to get along with Haynesworth so he's not going to be around for next season. Cut him, eat your losses but let the locker room know you are moving on with the players that want to be there and McNabb as your leader. The only factor that might be unknown is that perhaps there's something with the pending lockout that could make things financially better for them if Haynesworth is still around but I can't see how or why. They can't keep throwing good money after bad money. ---------------------------------------- If he's available I'd take him in a heartbeat and if necessary I'd cut Tommie Harris to do it. I know Haynesworth has been a really bad distraction for the Redskins but it isn't as if Harris has been a role model since we gave him his big contract. Harris is nothing more than a rotation player for us. Today's out of shape Haynesworth would be far more damaging coming up the middle than anything we've seen from Tommie this year. What's an Oline going to do with Peppers and Haynesworth side by side? I also think he'd respect Marinelli, Peppers, Urlacher, and Briggs and he'd come to work. If this happened I'd actually start thinking about the Superbowl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted December 8, 2010 Report Share Posted December 8, 2010 That might as well read "Redskins put Haynesworth on bench while they try to trade him". They are going to have one heck of a tough legal battle trying to bench him for four games without pay. Who else has ever done that? For what reason? Poor play? Any rookie lawyer would have a field day with that one. Just pick one of McNabb's bad games to start with. They're going to have to either cut him or pay him, or it will just get worse for them legally. I'm sure the NFLPA will fight it, but I think the Redskins might actually win this one. They're saying that on the day they suspended him, Haynesworth told the coaching staff that he wouldn't speak to Shanahan any more. Pretty hard to coach a guy when he won't let you talk to him. And (according to the team) this was after he'd already refused to play in a bunch of their defensive packages and disobeyed the coaches' instructions during games. If any or all of that is true, I have to think they've got a pretty good "conduct detrimental to the team" case. I'm starting to rethink my position on Haynesworth. You can have some egos on a team and still succeed, but you can't have a guy who's willing to shut it down if he doesn't like what you're telling him to do. I mean, there are lots of me-first guys who'll gripe and moan when they're not happy, but a guy who actually refuses to play if he doesn't like his role, that's another thing. Sure, maybe he'd be happy in the Bears' scheme, but if it were me, I wouldn't want a guy who only plays when he's happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted December 8, 2010 Report Share Posted December 8, 2010 This is a lot like the Randy Moss situation except Haynesworth is doing a lot more bitchin' and moaning. Moss was a dominant talent but he was taking plays off in Oakland and didn't like the team, coaches, he was a locker room cancer, etc. Everyone, including me said to stay away but then in rides Bill Belichik. Next thing you know Randy is happy and lo and behold New England and Brady are setting records left and right. I know they just got rid of him but they still got a couple great seasons out of him and you can't say he didn't help them. That's my point, if JA and Lovie and Marinelli get strong indications that Haynesworth would be happy in Chicago running our scheme then I think it's worth the risk. Another example is the Jay Cutler situation, although he wasn't taking plays off there were risks to that situation and the cost was much higher than we'd be paying to pick up Haynesworth off the street. We all hate to hear this but elite talent often comes with elite egos and managing that aspect is part of what's needed to put together a winning team. On the other hand, you can't fall into the coaches ego trap either where they think they can coach anyone to play better and work harder. The smart guys are the ones who figure out correctly which egos they can deal with and which to cast aside. If the opportunity is there JA needs to be having these discussions with his coaches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted December 8, 2010 Report Share Posted December 8, 2010 Great points... This is a lot like the Randy Moss situation except Haynesworth is doing a lot more bitchin' and moaning. Moss was a dominant talent but he was taking plays off in Oakland and didn't like the team, coaches, he was a locker room cancer, etc. Everyone, including me said to stay away but then in rides Bill Belichik. Next thing you know Randy is happy and lo and behold New England and Brady are setting records left and right. I know they just got rid of him but they still got a couple great seasons out of him and you can't say he didn't help them. That's my point, if JA and Lovie and Marinelli get strong indications that Haynesworth would be happy in Chicago running our scheme then I think it's worth the risk. Another example is the Jay Cutler situation, although he wasn't taking plays off there were risks to that situation and the cost was much higher than we'd be paying to pick up Haynesworth off the street. We all hate to hear this but elite talent often comes with elite egos and managing that aspect is part of what's needed to put together a winning team. On the other hand, you can't fall into the coaches ego trap either where they think they can coach anyone to play better and work harder. The smart guys are the ones who figure out correctly which egos they can deal with and which to cast aside. If the opportunity is there JA needs to be having these discussions with his coaches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted December 8, 2010 Report Share Posted December 8, 2010 I'm sure the NFLPA will fight it, but I think the Redskins might actually win this one. They're saying that on the day they suspended him, Haynesworth told the coaching staff that he wouldn't speak to Shanahan any more. Pretty hard to coach a guy when he won't let you talk to him. And (according to the team) this was after he'd already refused to play in a bunch of their defensive packages and disobeyed the coaches' instructions during games. If any or all of that is true, I have to think they've got a pretty good "conduct detrimental to the team" case. I'm starting to rethink my position on Haynesworth. You can have some egos on a team and still succeed, but you can't have a guy who's willing to shut it down if he doesn't like what you're telling him to do. I mean, there are lots of me-first guys who'll gripe and moan when they're not happy, but a guy who actually refuses to play if he doesn't like his role, that's another thing. Sure, maybe he'd be happy in the Bears' scheme, but if it were me, I wouldn't want a guy who only plays when he's happy. There's also more than a few reports that the "Illness" that kept Haynesworth out last week was a hangover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted December 8, 2010 Report Share Posted December 8, 2010 That might as well read "Redskins put Haynesworth on bench while they try to trade him". They are going to have one heck of a tough legal battle trying to bench him for four games without pay. Who else has ever done that? For what reason? Poor play? Any rookie lawyer would have a field day with that one. Just pick one of McNabb's bad games to start with. They're going to have to either cut him or pay him, or it will just get worse for them legally. Terrell Owens was suspended without pay for 4 games by the Philadelphia Eagles in 2005 for conduct detrimental to the team, unrelated to performance on the field, and that ruling was upheld by an arbitrator. In response, the league and the Union in the 2006 CBA allowed for a team to suspend a player for conduct detrimental to the team for up to 4 games. The Union accepted this rule because they were able to get the CBA to limit possible suspensions to 4 games, following the Owens Precedent. The Redskins are fully within their rights to do this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkerBear7 Posted December 9, 2010 Report Share Posted December 9, 2010 maybe Albert's agent could pay back a portion of the $21 M bonus in order to negotiate his release? Then he would be a FA and could sign with a 3-4 team like the Bears! I don't think Angelo would seriously pull the trigger (since he passed on Moss) but this team is still desperate to make the playoffs and still have four games left to make that happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearsFan1974 Posted December 9, 2010 Report Share Posted December 9, 2010 maybe Albert's agent could pay back a portion of the $21 M bonus in order to negotiate his release? Then he would be a FA and could sign with a 3-4 team like the Bears! I don't think Angelo would seriously pull the trigger (since he passed on Moss) but this team is still desperate to make the playoffs and still have four games left to make that happen. The Bears run a 4-3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted December 9, 2010 Report Share Posted December 9, 2010 maybe Albert's agent could pay back a portion of the $21 M bonus in order to negotiate his release? Then he would be a FA and could sign with a 3-4 team like the Bears! Pretty sure the Union would never allow that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkerBear7 Posted December 10, 2010 Report Share Posted December 10, 2010 That was a typo; i know the bears are a 4-3. The Bears run a 4-3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearsFan1974 Posted December 10, 2010 Report Share Posted December 10, 2010 That was a typo; i know the bears are a 4-3. Then my apologies are in order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.