Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: So our roster cost us Big Al « previous next »
Page: 1

weinberger83

*
Starter
****
Posts : 307
Offline
: March 02, 2009, 11:29:34 PM

I for one did not want to see tampa shell out that much money for Haynesworth but seeing as how he choose the skins over the bucs simply because of the roster.

Posted by Mike Florio on March 2, 2009, 10:07 p.m.

As the Tennessee Titans contemplate whether to pursue tampering charges against the Redskins regarding the recruitment of Albert Haynesworth, who had agreed to terms on a $100 million contract barely five hours after the opening of the period during which other teams were permitted to talk to the player or his agent, the Titans also might want to explore whether the Buccaneers were engaged in advance discussions with the Pro Bowl lineman.

Explaining to Sporting News Radio’s The Monty Show regarding his decision to sign with the ‘Skins instead of the Bucs, Haynesworth had this to say:  “I felt comfortable with [Tampa Bay coach] Raheem [Morris], he seemed to be a good person and he’s going to be a good coach, and I thought they had a lot of upside.”

So precisely when did Haynesworth develop a comfort level with Morris?  Between midnight and 12:30 a.m.?  From 2:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m.?

And how did he allocate his time between developing a comfort level with Morris and balancing out the offers of the six teams who were supposedly causing his agent’s phone to “explode” and then ultimately negotiate from scratch a nine-figure contract in less than six hours?

Meanwhile, Haynesworth explained that he opted for the Redskins instead of the Bucs in part because of the overall quality of Washington’s roster.

“I looked at the roster of the Redskins and looked at the roster of the Bucs and they cut a lot of starters, I mean they were older guys, but they cut five starters the day before,” Haynesworth said.  “And then you look at the ‘Skins and their team wasn’t old, and it’s not young, it’s in that middle age group like my age type of guys.  And you know having all the names we do that are really good players out there, even great players, I definitely thought we had a great shot at making a nice run for the playoffs and hopefully winning our division and getting deep in the playoffs.”

We wonder how he would have felt if the ‘Skins had dumped cornerback Shawn Springs and defensive end Jason Taylor before recruiting Haynesworth.

here is link    http://www.profootballtalk.com/category/rumor-mill/

Like Florio points out i dont think he would have gone to Washington if he knew that Taylor would not be there

BuccinTex

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 4940
Offline
#1 : March 03, 2009, 12:50:19 AM

Hmm interesting.   A lot of us have been saying this could be a major factor in a player's choice but the conspiracy theorists just can't seem to grasp it.   They figure if you offer enough money anyone will sign no matter what.   Thanks for the article. 


Simms2Clayton05

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
#2 : March 03, 2009, 12:51:25 AM

Im sure he would want to join our team now after the moves we have made. I hate what ifs but with Haynesworth on this team we would be a contender.

Boid Fink

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 53229
Offline
#3 : March 03, 2009, 12:53:56 AM

This whole childish act of "non-tampering" needs to cease and desist.

Everyone in the NFL atampers come pre-FA hunting season.  Even the commish has to be aware of it.  I mean, if idiot media guys can get a hold  of murmurings, I am quite sure that the pubaa "gets it".

The rule is sloppy, and stupid.


jerseybucsfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 13530
Offline
#4 : March 03, 2009, 01:10:59 AM

The heck with Haynesworth. He shunned us. Let's beat the Skins and make him regret not coming here.

In Verner We Trust

BuccinTex

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 4940
Offline
#5 : March 03, 2009, 01:22:05 AM

This whole childish act of "non-tampering" needs to cease and desist.

Everyone in the NFL atampers come pre-FA hunting season.  Even the commish has to be aware of it.  I mean, if idiot media guys can get a hold  of murmurings, I am quite sure that the pubaa "gets it".

The rule is sloppy, and stupid.

True but it's one of those must haves.   It's not fair to the team they played for the previous season.   You either have to make free agency start the day after the Super Bowl and lose the rule or keep the rule and give those teams the time to resign their guys.      I don't like the fact that another team could be calling our free agents and convincing them not to resign during that period prior to free agency.     They may tend to look the other way unless a team complains but the rule is still important IMO.    

Question for you Boid.   What do you think of this?   A three day period for visits and negotiations before a team can actually sign those players.   Say you give the previous teams until Feb. 24th to resign their guys with no outside interference.   From the 24th-27th is a negotiation and visiting period.   During that time the player can arrange visits and get to know coaches/GMs from teams that are interested.    Not sure if that would work or has some negatives that I haven't thought about but it seems like a good idea to me.   You wouldn't miss out on one guy cause you were negotiating with another.    The players would benefit and get the most money.  The teams would benefit because they'd have time to make their best offer and get to know the guy better to see if they actually want him.   At least once a year you hear about a guy that signed the first hour or so and you find out later that another team was interested and would have offered more but was dealing with another guy's agent first.    


dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21094
Offline
#6 : March 03, 2009, 08:37:10 AM


Question for you Boid.   What do you think of this?   A three day period for visits and negotiations before a team can actually sign those players.   Say you give the previous teams until Feb. 24th to resign their guys with no outside interference.   From the 24th-27th is a negotiation and visiting period.   During that time the player can arrange visits and get to know coaches/GMs from teams that are interested.    Not sure if that would work or has some negatives that I haven't thought about but it seems like a good idea to me.   You wouldn't miss out on one guy cause you were negotiating with another.    The players would benefit and get the most money.  The teams would benefit because they'd have time to make their best offer and get to know the guy better to see if they actually want him.   At least once a year you hear about a guy that signed the first hour or so and you find out later that another team was interested and would have offered more but was dealing with another guy's agent first.    

You just make the rule simple. The day after the SB you may begin negotiating with players but the FA period doesn't open for signings until March 1. No more tampering issues and, to most of your points, a better FA period for everyone.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.
If you think Manziel is the best QB in this draft I can safely assume you are an idiot and will treat you as such.

MarleyMon81

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4423
Offline
#7 : March 03, 2009, 08:42:29 AM

Now see how he spins the releasing of Jason Taylor, released AFTER AH signed with the Skins:

How do you feel about the Washington defense minus Jason Taylor?
“Well you know what, I honestly… it’s still a good defense even if you don’t have Jason Taylor you’re still going to have a good defense. And expect that Dan Snyder is going to go out and look a D-End that he can get to play in place of Jason. If you can so call replace Jason Taylor.”

Way to spin Big Al.  He just won't say he went for the bigger guaranteed pot.  He alluded to that fact during the season that he would go to the highest bidder.  So the difference in releasing Brooks before FA and the Skins releasing the likes of Taylor and Spring after FA...?  The difference is their release is OK with Big Al because those cuts helped him get his massive contract with the Skins to work.  That makes it OK with him.




Guest
#8 : March 03, 2009, 09:21:35 AM

The fact of the matter is that I am sure that a lot of players see the opportunity to play or being in the same lockerroom with Derrick Brooks as a very big plus !!!

Talk about an "impact player" .   Better luck next time.

Go Bucs.....time to start shaping up that defense.....remember the last 4 games ???? ......Time for Mark & Rah to bring the warriors......"Warriors.....Come out to playyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy"....

GenBrooks55

DanTurksGhost

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 19743
Offline
#9 : March 03, 2009, 09:33:16 AM

Um, no. The cuts DIDN'T cost us Big Al. The quote above is incomplete:

"I felt comfortable with Raheem [Morris, the Buccaneers' coach]. He seemed to be a good person and he's going to be a good coach, and I thought they had a lot of upside. But then they started whacking people. I guess they wanted to have that fresh new look and that's what they went for. It didn't really scare me off, but it didn't really help the situation."

He says:

"It didn't really scare me off, but it didn't really help the situation".

So it didn't hurt and it didn't help. In other words, it was a non-factor. It's simply a way for AH to not openly say "I went where they were going to give me the most guaranteed money".

This should put to rest the notion that the Buccaneers were not willing to put a $100M contract on the table for an impact player. The Bucs offered $30M plus in guaranteed money, and in the end Dan Snyder popped his guaranteed figure slightly over the $40M to seal the deal. That was the difference, and that was why AH signed in Washington.
Page: 1
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: So our roster cost us Big Al « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools