While cheap Albert Haynesworth jersey has been almost universally criticized for his failure to show up for the Washington Redskins' mandatory minicamp and for his request to be traded, there are two sides to every story. Here is the Albert Haynesworth jersey edition of the wildly popular Point-Counterpoint series.
Point: By not showing up for a mandatory minicamp, Haynesworth violated his contract. Mandatory means mandatory, right?
Counterpoint: Well, yes and no. True, when he signed the contract last year, he did agree to show up for mandatory events such as minicamps. But the contract called for a set penalty for failing to show up for minicamp and that's the standard set in the CBA. Haynesworth will pay his $10,000 fine for missing what turned out to be one day of practice (one was rained out, the other was cancelled by Mike Shanahan). Had the Redskins wanted to make a big deal out of minicamps, they could have put greater financial penalties for missing them into his contract. Now, if Haynesworth doesn't show up for training camp, that's another matter. But, as he indicated in his statement issued last week, he will show up for camp.
Point: Haynesworth was lied to. Before signing with the Redskins, Haynesworth and his representatives had a long talk with Dan Snyder and Vinny Cerrato, and he was assured that his role as a penetrating defensive tackle would remain the same. It was bad enough last year when defensive coordinator Greg Blache had him play more of a gap control role. But nose tackle in a 3-4? That's not what he was promised.
(discount Albert Haynesworth jersey)
Counterpoint: This just in—Jim Zorn and Vinny Cerrato did not hold lifetime contracts to their positions with the Redskins. Change happens in the NFL, and change frequently happens with the Redskins. The December prior to Haynesworth getting those promises, Zorn had described himself to be "the worst coach in America" and nobody disagreed. Zorn wasn't exactly hanging by a thread when Haynesworth signed, but it was a good bet that Haynesworth's seven-year contract would far, far outlast Zorn. Cerrato had been on the hot seat for years, and the word was that his fate was tied to that of Zorn. In short, if Haynesworth didn't see that the winds of change already were blowing around Redskins Park when he signed that deal, he was blinded by dollar signs. And if there were changes to the regime, promises to play a particular position in a particular fashion would be gone with the wind. On top of all of that, this was a verbal agreement, which, as we all know, isn't worth the paper it's written on.
Point: Regarding the position, besides the "he should have seen that change was coming" thing, what's the big deal about being a 3-4 nose tackle instead of a 4-3 tackle? You just move over a few feet, and you're surrounded by two ends instead of by a tackle and an end?
Counterpoint: Sorry, but the difference between a nose tackle and a 4-3 DT is much bigger than sliding over a few feet. The nose tackle is constantly subject to double- and even triple-team blocking. His job is to occupy the blockers to let others make the plays. Such a style of play isn't in Haynesworth's DNA. In addition, at 6-6, Haynesworth is too tall to be a nose tackle. He's too big a target, and the chances of his career being cut short with all of the wear and tear are high. Ray Lewis had his critical remarks about Haynesworth, but he wouldn't have lined up at defensive tackle if the Ravens had asked him to. And such a change would not be all that different from the one that Haynesworth is being asked to make.
Point: Haynesworth has an issue with his employer. The way the one-sided NFL contact is set up, the only recourse a player has is to withhold his services. In his view, Haynesworth is fighting for what he thinks is best for his career, and he's playing the only card he has. Counterpoint: Great point there except it completely ignores the fact that the Redskins offered to let Haynesworth get out of that one-sided contract. He was told that the team would be changing to a 3-4 defense and that he would be expected to play nose tackle at least part of the time. If he didn't want to do that, Shanahan and Bruce Allen told him, he could forego the payment of a $21 million bonus on April 1 and get his release. They would have been perfectly happy to let Haynesworth collect about $11 million for 12 games of work, and then let him sign anywhere he wanted, no doubt collecting another big chunk of guaranteed money in the process. But when April 1 came, Haynesworth took the Redskins' check. Now he doesn't want to live up to his end of the deal.
Point: It looks like this whole thing already has passed the point of no return. It's one thing when Lewis calls you out, or when NFLPA president Kevin Mawae says, "You talk about someone putting a mask on and going in backwards to get his paycheck." It's another thing when London Fletcher says that you're "selfish" and virtually everyone on the team agrees. Albert will be a pariah in the locker room and, with the media asking all sorts of question, a massive distraction.
Counterpoint: This isn't the first time that a player has caused a flap in June and, more often than not, things get smoothed over and all is hunky-dory by the time the season starts. Just to pick out one recent example, look at Brandon Marshall of the Broncos a year ago. He complained about his contract loudly, and frequently, demanded to be traded, and was an outright disruption in training camp. Things settled down, Marshall had another 100-catch season and, at the end, he was traded to Miami and got the contract he wanted. There is no reason why the Haynesworth saga can't turn out the same way. Sure, the media will ask questions for a day or two, but things will die down. Albert will behave; if he does anything that could be considered conduct detrimental to the team, he faces a suspension that could lead to the Redskins being able to go after some of that bonus money. This situation is a little different from most in that it doesn't involve money, but someone staying away from team activities due to a dispute hardly is unprecedented.
没有评论:
发表评论