Rumor - 2nd Round pick for Haynesworth

[ArmyBengal]

As far as Haynesworth in a non contract year, it's already been proven his production in Washington last year was at a minimum equal to his dominant production with the Titans, so there's no argument to be made in that regard.

As for not being able to win without Chad on this team, I say absolute crazy talk. There's simply no way in hell the season rests solely on the shoulders of Chad. If it in fact does and we really can't win without him, someone really needs to go back and revisit the entire roster and what we "think" we have, because we are F*CKED !!!

Again, this is simple conversation about a situation that I don't think anyone would even give a 1% chance of happening. That being said, what I find interesting is people continuing to take up for an aging player, who is no longer dominant at his position, at the expense of not only other players on the roster, but considering other ways to improve the roster.

Maybe this is more about hate for some, but I simply see it as something that should at least be considered for realistic reasons.

Sometimes I really think people ignore facts that have been written many times, because it interferes with a good rant.

[BlainThePain]

I'm a little late into this debate, and I've only skimmed over the points being made, but how could anybody be for trading Chad right now?

The biggest problem with the team last year was the passing game, and some of you guys one to trade the only WR that is a proven consistent threat at WR that we have on the roster?

On a side note, John Thornton thinks we will trade one of our WR's before the season starts, and if anyone I think is tradebate its Caldwell. He's a young proven slot receiver that still has plenty of potential to grow, but he's on a team that currently has a boatload of slot receivers. We have the people to replace what he can do, and he could probably fetch us a decent player for the team. This move would probably also save Quan's spot on the team, as well.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

As far as Haynesworth in a non contract year, it's already been proven his production in Washington last year was at a minimum equal to his dominant production with the Titans, so there's no argument to be made in that regard.

I'd love to see that proof. His sack and tackle numbers were down, and his production was so good that the Deadskins want to ship him out of town for nickels on the dollar a year after giving him $100M contract - including a whole lot up front. This guy really had only two good years - the ones leading up to his contract. He was lazy before that, and he showed his true colors last year. I'm interested in any analysis that shows him to be a dominant player last year, but I can say that there's nobody within 50 miles of me who would agree with that.

As for not being able to win without Chad on this team, I say absolute crazy talk. There's simply no way in hell the season rests solely on the shoulders of Chad. If it in fact does and we really can't win without him, someone really needs to go back and revisit the entire roster and what we "think" we have, because we are F*CKED !!!

Agreed, but I don't think anybody said that. There are only two relevant questions: 1) Is the team better off without Chad, and 2) Could we get anything for him that would make the team better? I'm confident the answer to #1 is "no", and I believe the answer to #2 is "not this year", and probably not at all.

Again, this is simple conversation about a situation that I don't think anyone would even give a 1% chance of happening.

Agreed on that. If it was going to, it probably already would have.

That being said, what I find interesting is people continuing to take up for an aging player, who is no longer dominant at his position, at the expense of not only other players on the roster, but considering other ways to improve the roster.

Again, I'm pretty sure nobody's saying that. What *I'm* saying is that 1) Chad's still good, if not dominant anymore, and 2) I think you'd be surprised how little you'd get for him in a trade. At that point, I think people want him out of here because they bear a grudge, and that's not the best idea in the world.

Maybe this is more about hate for some

So you noticed TJ frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog, huh?

[TJJackson]

TJ frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog

Ah yes, none of the points I made or facts I presented were anything than rabid frothings.

After all, when one presents facts while angry about them, those facts become less true.

Yep.

Got it.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

TJ frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog

Ah yes, none of the points I made or facts I presented were anything than rabid frothings.

After all, when one presents facts while angry about them, those facts become less true.

Yep.

Got it.

Anger clouds judgement, Daniel-san. I haven't seen much from you in the way of "facts" that affect a cost-benefit analysis, though you do have the passive-aggressive thing down cold.

What I've seen from you is more along the lines of "Chad's a doodyhead, I hate him, I want him gone". I can't quite understand the level of hatred you have for the man, unless he ran over your dog or something. It seems something less than rational and calls your analysis and motivation into question. I think you'd rather lose without Chad than win with him.

Ultimately, the only relevant question is whether we can get more for Chad than he's worth, and I doubt it at this point.

[TJJackson]

Anger clouds judgement, Daniel-san

Oh sure.

Like the fact that Chad tanked the 2008 season

If someone can say those words without being angry about it, then it remains true

On the other hand, I happen to be angry about it, and I mention it; and because I am angry about it, the statement is no longer true.

Got it.

Thanks

Good thing I am not angry abut the Pope being Catholic or the bear defecating in the woods.

Wax on, wax off.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Like the fact that Chad tanked the 2008 season...If someone can say those words without being angry about it, then it remains true....On the other hand, I happen to be angry about it, and I mention it; and because I am angry about it, the statement is no longer true.

The fact is not questioned. The issue at hand is the relevance to the *2010* season.

I think you and Chad need some couples' therapy.

[TJJackson]

The issue at hand is the relevance to the *2010* season.

I believe it is relevant to 2010 that Chad chooses to eschew practice with his teammates, on a team with serious playoff aspirations, in favor of dancing and 85 skanks

I believe it is relevant to 2010 that Chad has demonstrated a pattern of seriously unprofessional behaivor and lack of judgement, both of which have had significant negative on-field impacts, and could ergo easily happen again at any time.

I believe it is relevant to 2010 that Chad drops balls at a greater rate than most other starting WRs, and has made zero effort to rectify

I believe it is relevant to 2010 that Chad is preparing less at a time when his natural athleticism is (as with any aged WR) declining.

I believe it is relevant to 2010 that his teammates have the challenge of watching this crap unfold, knowing they have to rely on a basically unreliable player who (salt on the wounds) makes far more money for far less work than almost any of them. Like any professional, they just have to shut up and do their job, but it is MUCH harder due to Chad, and it need not be so.

I believe it is relevant to 2010 that we wasted at least one high draft pick, possibly two, picks that could be making a positive impact elsewhere on this team, because of the chaos and uncertainty Chad's 2008 tantrum created for this team

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

I believe...yada

So what do you do NOW. Cut him? I get being frustrated with him and all (though I find the level of obsession a touch disturbing). I'd have taken Danny Boy's two firsts for 2008 and 2009 and run like hell. But here we are. The trade discussion is off point until we hear of a credible offer, and (for all the reasons you yourself dictate) a first-round pick ain't walking through the door.

If we get 2009 Chad again he's still the best receiver we have, in all likelihood. And nobody's dumb enough to cut their #1 receiver.

[bwillycuse]

Maybe its a sad state of affairs for this team but Chad is the only certain sure thing we have on our roster at WR.

Bryant is the only other proven WR on this team but so was Coles last year - so its a wait and see on his learning the system and adjusting to palmer.

This team needs Chad. Id love for him to be present but Marvin said he could be absent so Ill trust the coach.

Other teams have many players not at OTA. Its a non-issue for me. OTAs are generally for the younger players and those coming back from injury.

Looks like Revis doesn't think OTAs are important either. Along with Wayne and Favre and Bethea, etc, etc.

/>http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/06/03/unhappy-with-his-contract-revis-is-skipping-otas/

[TJJackson]

the level of obsession

obsession? hardly

I react when folks start talking about what a fine player and/or person Chad is, or the biggest piece of genius of all - that his tanking a season has improved the team.

If I dont have to read such nonsense here, I dont have any need to refute the nonsense.

No 'Praise Saint Chad' posts = no 'F*ck You Chad' response posts from me

Don't confuse disgust and anger with obsession.

[ArmyBengal]

As far as Haynesworth in a non contract year, it's already been proven his production in Washington last year was at a minimum equal to his dominant production with the Titans, so there's no argument to be made in that regard.

I'd love to see that proof. His sack and tackle numbers were down, and his production was so good that the Deadskins want to ship him out of town for nickels on the dollar a year after giving him $100M contract - including a whole lot up front. This guy really had only two good years - the ones leading up to his contract. He was lazy before that, and he showed his true colors last year. I'm interested in any analysis that shows him to be a dominant player last year, but I can say that there's nobody within 50 miles of me who would agree with that.

I would love to provide that proof to you, but can't. Seems ESPN gets pissed when it's insider articles that cost money to view are posted on forums for all to see at no cost. I can only say to either get ESPN or find a friend (like I did) that will let you read. Either way, there was an entire article that not only broke down Haynesworth's production last year, but what they could anticipate from him as a 3-4 NT. Needless to say, all the people in your 50 mile radius would be wrong.

As for not being able to win without Chad on this team, I say absolute crazy talk. There's simply no way in hell the season rests solely on the shoulders of Chad. If it in fact does and we really can't win without him, someone really needs to go back and revisit the entire roster and what we "think" we have, because we are F*CKED !!!

Agreed, but I don't think anybody said that. There are only two relevant questions: 1) Is the team better off without Chad, and 2) Could we get anything for him that would make the team better? I'm confident the answer to #1 is "no", and I believe the answer to #2 is "not this year", and probably not at all.

Actually only 3 posts before my last were those very words spoken. Is the team better off without Chad ?? It all depends on the development of the youngsters and WR's we brought in. Bryant has been a very productive #1 in this league. If they haven't or don't develop, the answer is no, I can admit that. Haynesworth would in fact make this team better and that is the point of this thread and how Chad was brought into the conversation. Someday Chad won't be a part of this team and if the team is as strong as we all think it is, his loss isn't going to be as significant as some might think. It's either that or the rest of the team sucks worse than we thought.

That being said, what I find interesting is people continuing to take up for an aging player, who is no longer dominant at his position, at the expense of not only other players on the roster, but considering other ways to improve the roster.

Again, I'm pretty sure nobody's saying that. What *I'm* saying is that 1) Chad's still good, if not dominant anymore, and 2) I think you'd be surprised how little you'd get for him in a trade. At that point, I think people want him out of here because they bear a grudge, and that's not the best idea in the world.

There are plenty of people on this site that think Chad is a top 5 WR in this league, so yeah, people are saying that. They are wrong regardless of how much they may love him. I have also already stated I think Chad will still be a solid WR and have defended him in the "Chad lost his hunger" thread. I simply don't think he can be taken out of the trade conversation "just because"... I'm also not the one spouting about him fetching a 1st rounder. I don't agree with that, but do think he could be traded for another player of Haynesworth's capacity. Simply based on his actions this offseason in Washington and the perception there that he won't be a great 3-4 NT, which is an incorrect assumption.

I've said it many times, but will say it again. I think Chad will be here this coming season. I think he will have another solid season for us. Heck, I will even be rooting that Chad (the player) does good things to help the team win. All that being said, he still should be a consideration in trade discussions based on his talent set (some think he's elite remember ?) and what we should be trying to accomplish for the future of the WR position. Mine is not a hate filled opinion (although I understand that hate), but one of just keeping all things on the table as a consideration. Those that think a player is untouchable are fooling themselves.

Most of those original thoughts weren't pointed at you either DC, just responding to your responses. Maybe someone else would like to chime in and defend their position on this matter.

[BengalPimp]

As far as Haynesworth in a non contract year, it's already been proven his production in Washington last year was at a minimum equal to his dominant production with the Titans, so there's no argument to be made in that regard.

I'd love to see that proof. His sack and tackle numbers were down, and his production was so good that the Deadskins want to ship him out of town for nickels on the dollar a year after giving him $100M contract - including a whole lot up front. This guy really had only two good years - the ones leading up to his contract. He was lazy before that, and he showed his true colors last year. I'm interested in any analysis that shows him to be a dominant player last year, but I can say that there's nobody within 50 miles of me who would agree with that.

I would love to provide that proof to you, but can't. Seems ESPN gets pissed when it's insider articles that cost money to view are posted on forums for all to see at no cost. I can only say to either get ESPN or find a friend (like I did) that will let you read. Either way, there was an entire article that not only broke down Haynesworth's production last year, but what they could anticipate from him as a 3-4 NT. Needless to say, all the people in your 50 mile radius would be wrong.

First, they are not trying to "ship him out of town for nickles on the dollar" because of performance. Rather, it's Shanahan's insistence on running a 3-4 Defense regardless of the personnel already on the roster, and Haynesworth's reluctance to be a 3-4 NT.

As for proof, statistics are only 1 part of evaluating a players contribution....for example Reggie Kelly is was far more important to our offense than his numbers indicated. Also, look at CB Nnamdi Asomugha. He again made the Pro Bowl, and is regarded as one of the top 2 or 3 CB's in the game despite having only 1 INT last year (actually he has only had 1 in each of the past 3 years while having 34, 40, and 34 tackles respectively). Teams don't throw his way very often, so his "true impact" can't be measured by stats alone.

I say look at Washington's overall defense (ranked 10th). The 'Skins games i saw last year, Haynesworth was almost never blocked by one man. By comanding a double-team, he was freeing up teammates. For example Andre Carter went from having 4 Sacks in '08 to 11 Sacks in '09 with Haynesworth playing DT. Orakpo (a rookie) also had 11 Sacks. I seriously doubt that opposing teams were "gameplanning" to stop those guys...Their focus was on Haynesworth. Haynesworth was also learning a new system, and while his 4 Sacks were a bit of a drop, that's still a good number for a DT.

I wouldn't mind getting him at all.......But I still want Chad too.

[bwillycuse]

Chad is NOT a top 5 WR.

[ArmyBengal]

As far as Haynesworth in a non contract year, it's already been proven his production in Washington last year was at a minimum equal to his dominant production with the Titans, so there's no argument to be made in that regard.

I'd love to see that proof. His sack and tackle numbers were down, and his production was so good that the Deadskins want to ship him out of town for nickels on the dollar a year after giving him $100M contract - including a whole lot up front. This guy really had only two good years - the ones leading up to his contract. He was lazy before that, and he showed his true colors last year. I'm interested in any analysis that shows him to be a dominant player last year, but I can say that there's nobody within 50 miles of me who would agree with that.

I would love to provide that proof to you, but can't. Seems ESPN gets pissed when it's insider articles that cost money to view are posted on forums for all to see at no cost. I can only say to either get ESPN or find a friend (like I did) that will let you read. Either way, there was an entire article that not only broke down Haynesworth's production last year, but what they could anticipate from him as a 3-4 NT. Needless to say, all the people in your 50 mile radius would be wrong.

First, they are not trying to "ship him out of town for nickles on the dollar" because of performance. Rather, it's Shanahan's insistence on running a 3-4 Defense regardless of the personnel already on the roster, and Haynesworth's reluctance to be a 3-4 NT.

As for proof, statistics are only 1 part of evaluating a players contribution....for example Reggie Kelly is was far more important to our offense than his numbers indicated. Also, look at CB Nnamdi Asomugha. He again made the Pro Bowl, and is regarded as one of the top 2 or 3 CB's in the game despite having only 1 INT last year (actually he has only had 1 in each of the past 3 years while having 34, 40, and 34 tackles respectively). Teams don't throw his way very often, so his "true impact" can't be measured by stats alone.

I say look at Washington's overall defense (ranked 10th). The 'Skins games i saw last year, Haynesworth was almost never blocked by one man. By comanding a double-team, he was freeing up teammates. For example Andre Carter went from having 4 Sacks in '08 to 11 Sacks in '09 with Haynesworth playing DT. Orakpo (a rookie) also had 11 Sacks. I seriously doubt that opposing teams were "gameplanning" to stop those guys...Their focus was on Haynesworth. Haynesworth was also learning a new system, and while his 4 Sacks were a bit of a drop, that's still a good number for a DT.

I wouldn't mind getting him at all.......But I still want Chad too.

Nice post Pimp...

[BengalPimp]

.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

I would love to provide that proof to you, but can't...broke down Haynesworth's production last year, but what they could anticipate from him as a 3-4 NT. Needless to say, all the people in your 50 mile radius would be wrong.

I'll take your word for it, though as a stat dork I can only say there's a lot of ways to slice things. I know that damn near every Deadskins fan wants their money back on him. All I can say. They were down on him before the whole 3-4 thing. I'm not saying I wouldn't want him on my team, but I wouldn't expect him to be the guy he was in 07 and 08.

There are plenty of people on this site that think Chad is a top 5 WR in this league...I have also already stated I think Chad will still be a solid WR and have defended him in the "Chad lost his hunger" thread.

Agreen doesn't count. I agree with you in general - if healthy, I still think Chad's good for somewhere near 1000 yards.

I...do think he could be traded for another player of Haynesworth's capacity. Simply based on his actions this offseason in Washington and the perception there that he won't be a great 3-4 NT, which is an incorrect assumption.

If so, then Shanny's playing some good poker, he claims he ain't moving. The problem is that, having paid him so much up front, he's actually not that expensive this year or so I hear. So I don't think we'd get him for Chad straight up, and at the same time I think I'd rather have Chad - though if the trade happened I don't think I'd care much either way.

I've said it many times, but will say it again. I think Chad will be here this coming season. I think he will have another solid season for us. Heck, I will even be rooting that Chad (the player) does good things to help the team win.

What you just said is my point in a nutshell - Chad will be in stripes in 2010, so those folks who belong to the Chad Hate Club need to learn to love it.

[derekshank]

Chad will be in stripes in 2010, so those folks who belong to the Chad Hate Club need to learn to love it.

I don't need to learn to love s**t.

Chad is a Bengal, and I can live with it, I can accept it, I can even cheer when he does well... but I don't have to love it.

In fact, I haven't loved it since the '05 season. At times, I've downright hated it. That doesn't make me any less of a fan... because ultimately I'm always cheering for the uniform - not the player. And for that reason I have no problem with cheering for Chad and simultaneously disliking him.

[ArmyBengal]

I'll take your word for it, though as a stat dork I can only say there's a lot of ways to slice things. I know that damn near every Deadskins fan wants their money back on him. All I can say. They were down on him before the whole 3-4 thing. I'm not saying I wouldn't want him on my team, but I wouldn't expect him to be the guy he was in 07 and 08.

That's what I found interesting about the article itself, is wasn't really based on stats alone. It took into account how many times opposing teams threw a double team at him, how many times he was able to beat the double team, and how each time the double team came his way it allowed the other players around him to make a significant play. That's just one example that was a very interesting read. It wasn't the typical and took into account other things that the normal fan probably doesn't sit and take into consideration.

If healthy, I still think Chad's good for somewhere near 1000 yards.

I'll buy that, but it's also the reason when trading a WR comes up, there's value to be found in Chad.

Folks who belong to the Chad Hate Club need to learn to love it.

I think they will be more than happy to "love it" when Chad is doing all the things that should be expected from a professional. I also think the best way for the folks who belong to the "Chad is a top 5 WR" club to not have to deal with the backlash of those in the "Chad hate club" is to not spew such stupidity to start. Like I said, I understand the hate. Heck, most can remember a time when everything relating to Chad resulted in a "F*CK YOU CHAD" response from yours truly.

[Ickey44]

Perhaps you're having trouble with the concept of something still being considered unforgivable even after a lengthy cooling off period? Or maybe you can't grasp the concept of cashing in on Chad's remaining trade value being, for some, more desirable than his continued presence.

I understand it's unforgivable. I haven't forgiven him for it, but I don't feel the need to constantly bitch about it either.

Also, any trade value Chad might have had, probably disappeared when he tanked an entire season and then publicly admitted it. I doubt many teams will be willing to give up a draft pick or even a 3rd string player for someone like that.

Because people like you can't seem to move on unless people like me openly forgive Chad. And simply put, I don't feel compelled to do that.

Um, I've moved on without forgiving him. I haven't forgotten. I just see no need to dwell on the past. All the bitching in the world isn't going to change what happened. Move on.

[TJJackson]

I've moved on without forgiving him. I haven't forgotten. I just see no need to dwell on the past. All the bitching in the world isn't going to change what happened. Move on.

I can move on.

However

I can and will refute posts about how great Chad is as a WR or a person.

If I never see such a post again, you'll never hear from me again on the subject

That said, I doubt that the Chad-lovers will be able to restrain their outpouring of love

[Ickey44]

I've moved on without forgiving him. I haven't forgotten. I just see no need to dwell on the past. All the bitching in the world isn't going to change what happened. Move on.

I can move on.

However

I can and will refute posts about how great Chad is as a WR or a person.

If I never see such a post again, you'll never hear from me again on the subject

That said, I doubt that the Chad-lovers will be able to restrain their outpouring of love

Fair enough, but as you've repeatedly pointed out, you consider the "Chad lovers" to be idiots. Why get into an argument with an idiot when the logic you provide will not be understood? It's kind of like beating your head against the wall, isn't it?

[TJJackson]

you consider the "Chad lovers" to be idiots. Why get into an argument with an idiot

Well, first there is the hope that after being told the truth a thousand times, and not getting it, maybe the 1,001th time will do the trick. yeah, it's not much, but there it is.

Then there is the matter that a less frequent reader (who does not know what kind of posters JoeWrong/agreen/gizzle/whurchadat/pushy/etc are) reads this stuff, and if it remains unchallenged, takes that as a generally accepted opinion here. The smarter ones among such folks will immediately chalk up this board as a low quality band of homers, which we certainly aren't. The more naive folks might actually come to believe such lunacy as 'Chad is a top 5 receiver right now', and that's just downright bad.

So such statements should be refuted.

[Ickey44]

I guess...it just feels like the movie Groundhog's Day in here. It seems like a lot of threads end up with this same argument.

[TJJackson]

a lot of threads end up with this same argument.

Agreed

I keep hearing how great Chad is, thread after thread.