Skip to content

A closer look at the Haynesworth photo

During Sunday night’s game between the Cowboys and Redskins (on NBC, by the way), images emerged of Redskins defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth standing away from what appeared at first blush to be a defensive meeting.

A league source explained to us on Monday that Haynesworth wasn’t boycotting a meeting of the full defense.  Instead, the huddle involved linebackers and defensive backs, and no defensive linemen.

Closer review of a photo posted by Mike Tunison of KSK and various other blogs confirms that no defensive linemen were in the huddle.  Though the presence of a player wearing No. 95 creates the impression that at least one defensive lineman was involved, the man who wears the number (Chris Wilson) plays linebacker.

In the image in question, defensive linemen (including Phillip Daniels and Kedric Gholston) appear to be sitting on and standing near the bench behind Haynesworth, with no coaches involved in the discussion.

That said, Haynesworth’s demeanor at the time suggested that he wouldn’t have been in the meeting even if it involved every player, coach, and club employee — and if free food and beverages were being served.  Also, it’s possible that Haynesworth has projected that same demeanor on other occasions, when coaches were trying to gather the defensive linemen for further instruction. 

Either way, the Redskins either need to embrace this guy or get rid of him — and if he doesn’t want to be embraced they should get him out of there before he screws up what could be a good first season for coach Mike Shanahan.

Permalink 42 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Dallas Cowboys, Home, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Washington Redskins
42 Responses to “A closer look at the Haynesworth photo”
  1. ADogDC says: Sep 14, 2010 10:09 AM

    This is what I be talking about…..
    You get to pick and choose when to assume….
    And that was the same thing Al Michaels and Collinsworth did…..
    This was No News is No News, but you are still trying to find a way to make it news…….
    Wow….Just Wow….

  2. JohnnyFootballHero says: Sep 14, 2010 10:13 AM

    Anyone else think no other team is buying Shanahan’s “Haynesworth is awesome and playing hard” line?
    No wonder the Titans are the only interested party in his sorry ass.

  3. shaggeez says: Sep 14, 2010 10:18 AM

    That said, Haynesworth’s demeanor at the time suggested that he wouldn’t have been in the meeting even if it involved every player, coach, and club employee — and if free food and beverages were being served. Also, it’s possible that Haynesworth has projected that same demeanor on other occasions, when coaches were trying to gather the defensive linemen for further instruction.
    So, you are bashing the guy for not looking like he wants to be part of a meeting he wasn’t supposed to be at and/or a non-existent meeting that would include defensive lineman that presumably he wouldn’t show up to. Honestly, is that what this has come to?

  4. Massappeal says: Sep 14, 2010 10:19 AM

    Another guilty “by Florio” interpretation.
    The power of the internet.

  5. Bartleby says: Sep 14, 2010 10:20 AM

    And the reason you don’t link to Tunison (or explain what “KSK” is)?
    Bitch move Florio… as usual.

  6. Card Magnet says: Sep 14, 2010 10:20 AM

    I disagree – he would have been involved if free drinks and food were provided.

  7. scampbell1975 says: Sep 14, 2010 10:21 AM

    His demeanor suggests? his is the type of crap you pass off around here? His demeanor suggests?

  8. MrJames says: Sep 14, 2010 10:21 AM

    So, even though there was no meeting, based on the photo you have concluded that he would have done so if there was a meeting?
    Now written like that, dont you feel stupid?

  9. ScribbledNotes says: Sep 14, 2010 10:23 AM

    So, Mike….
    First you all but admit that the reaction to the photo was wrong and that Haynesworth might not have been boycotting a defensive meeting.
    But then you make a completely unsupported guess that Haynesworth still wouldn’t have been in the huddle even if every defensive player had been. That’s baseless and childish. Perhaps he didn’t people to see him as fat and lazy because he was sitting on the bench?
    Also, what makes you think the Skins haven’t embraced him. Despite numerous trade rumors, the guy is still in DC, and Shanahan keeps talking about him improving and eventually becoming a bigger part of the defense.
    Stop making generalizations just so you can still justify your own opinions.

  10. drozman says: Sep 14, 2010 10:30 AM

    NBC should be embarrassed by Michaels’ and Collinsworth’s comments Sunday night. Collinsworth was clearly biased towards his college coach. They made this into something it wasn’t, just like most of the other media outlets. At least this one had the decency to correct itself. But then again you assume that he wouldn’t have been in the meeting even though there was no meeting.

  11. rickah88888 says: Sep 14, 2010 10:31 AM

    So NFL teams have defensive meeting that include every one BUT D-Lineman? Last time I checked D-Lineman need to be “in” on the play calling as well…especially in a 3-4 scheme!

  12. humnbass says: Sep 14, 2010 10:36 AM

    Wow. You have a lot of time on your hands with nothing to write about don’t you. You seem to be the type of guy that will bring a dead horse to a rodeo and beat him because he won’t walk out of the trailer. Get some real news man. REAL NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  13. P-Town Stripes says: Sep 14, 2010 10:40 AM

    Absolutely ridiculous! The assumptions were wrong in the first place, but assuming you know the mind or can accurately read the body language of a man I doubt you know is unbelieavble. I know shy people that come off as stuck up from a distance, but only come off as shy once you are actually around them. Learn from this!

  14. boysrollsmokespole says: Sep 14, 2010 10:42 AM

    Wise, Florio..really there is no difference, its all BS

  15. iPhone4idiots says: Sep 14, 2010 10:44 AM

    OK, as a long term Titans fan I’ll finally chime in since I’m not busy this morning.
    First, the Redskins were crazy to pay Haynesworth that much money. He was always lazy and played maybe 12 games per year. But Synder is the dumbest owner in the league when it comes to signing free agents. That said, many fans have no idea how dominate he can be when motivated (like his contract year). He never put up big sack numbers, but he was always double teamed with Titans. Despite the double team he blew up so many plays with penetration. His next to last season with Titans he missed 4 games I believe. The difference in the rush defense was shocking it was so great. That is what a “motivated” Haynesworth does. Oh, not to mention look at the sack totals of the players around fat Albert. KVB never would have gotten so many sacks without Fat Albert. Every Titan knew he was the defenses MVP. So the question becomes is there anyway to motivate him again since he won’t be playing for a new contract anytime soon?? Well IMO, the Redskins have no chance of doing it. Shanahan is one of the most overrated coaches ever. Elway and TD won those Super Bowls. Shanahan does things like draft Maurice Claret in the 3rd round and has no idea how to manage personalities. Treating everyone the same sounds good, but there are 53 men on his team and like it or not they will respond differently. Some need to be yelled at and some need to be babyied. He’s lost Fat Albert forever and keeping him on the team is a timebomb.
    I hope the Titans trade for him, but anything more than a 3rd round pick is crazy. He’s cheap now at like $16 million over the next 3 years with $9 gauranteed. The only downside is will he poison your lockerroom?? Given the history, I think the Titans can handle him. Washburn might even figure out a way to motivate him.
    The Skins D doesn’t seem to need him so they should drop the asking price and send him away. It’s only a matter of time til Haynesworth is the lead story again as opposed to the games.

  16. yem123 says: Sep 14, 2010 10:45 AM

    No… if free food and beverages would be there, so would Fat Albert.

  17. jfdane says: Sep 14, 2010 10:52 AM

    I can’t believe anyone is even talking about this over priced BACK UP defensive tackle that was consistently just pushed out of the play the whole game.

  18. DCguru says: Sep 14, 2010 10:54 AM

    If you look close at the photo you can see no martians in there. Surely the martians are boycotting the meeting, to which they don’t belong anyway and were not invited, but they are boycotting it, because they feel they should be part of it. Then they could rightly boycott it and make everybody, including themselves look bad, but feel good about themselves and make a statement…
    ProFootball Talk has the *dumbest* logic in the world. My god.
    Haynesworth *was not part of the meeting*. Speculating about what he might do if he were supposed to be part of the meeting is stupid.
    Please stick to the facts and events as they actually occur, not making them up as you wish they would occur so you could make more money talking about the inanity of the non-game silliness.
    A W is a W, and Haynesworth contributed to that W. Move on.

  19. Simon12345 says: Sep 14, 2010 11:04 AM

    “That said, Haynesworth’s demeanor at the time suggested that he wouldn’t have been in the meeting even if it involved every player, coach, and club employee — and if free food and beverages were being served. Also, it’s possible that Haynesworth has projected that same demeanor on other occasions, when coaches were trying to gather the defensive linemen for further instruction.
    Either way, the Redskins either need to embrace this guy or get rid of him — and if he doesn’t want to be embraced they should get him out of there before he screws up what could be a good first season for coach Mike Shanahan.”
    OK, the media was wrong in taking all the Haynesworth stuff completely out of context. So, now what is the next logical thing to do. Beat the same old drum based on our past, tired old assumtions…hurray!
    I’m almost waiting for a post that reads, “While the Redskins remained unified on the field and upset the Cowboys, who many predict to go to the Super Bowl, we feel it’s only a matter of time before Shanahan loses the locker room.” Jeeze.

  20. 5to47TDTDTD says: Sep 14, 2010 11:04 AM

    Haynesworth and devin thomas and a draft for RANDY MOSS AND LOGAN MANKINS STRAIGHT UP MAYEB SWAP SUM PICKS ALSO GREAT IDEA! Pats seem to be able to get rid of vets very easliy hope this deal will happen it would greatly benefit both sides an instanly turn the skinds dominate and sure up the pats underlying discomtent a,omg their ‘unwanted vets! Make it happen!

  21. BobsCountryBunker says: Sep 14, 2010 11:08 AM

    Gotta agree with the bashers this time, Florio. Too much conjecture. Don’t leave the rug behind when you pull your head out of your sphincter…

  22. 5to47TDTDTD says: Sep 14, 2010 11:09 AM

    Haynesworth and devin thomas and a draft for RANDY MOSS AND LOGAN MANKINS STRAIGHT UP MAYEB SWAP SUM PICKS ALSO GREAT IDEA! Pats seem to be able to get rid of vets very easliy hope this deal will happen it would greatly benefit both sides an instanly turn the skinds dominate and sure up the pats underlying discomtent a,omg their ‘unwanted vets! Make it happen!

  23. Simon12345 says: Sep 14, 2010 11:12 AM

    @iPhone4idiots -
    “The Skins D doesn’t seem to need him so they should drop the asking price and send him away. It’s only a matter of time til Haynesworth is the lead story again as opposed to the games.”
    The problem with your reasoning is that the Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan work for Washington, not Tennessee. Their handling of this situation should not be dictated by what makes things easier for Tennessee.
    Contrary to your statement here, this is actually getting to be LESS of an issue in the Washington media and fan base than it was before. People are starting to accept how Shanahan is managing the situation. The Redskins should keep him for now and either a.) he gets better in the system or b.) someone on another team gets injured and the “asking price” remains high because they need a good DL to make a playoff run.
    The Redskins can and should operate out of their own self interest, not Tennessee’s.

  24. 1NationRaiderNation says: Sep 14, 2010 11:15 AM

    i found it a bit odd, the minute the raiders announced they signed alford, the redskins said everything was ok with AH…..it seemed like it’s a dead issue, but no one can blame AH if he wants to be a raider.

  25. Wiscdave says: Sep 14, 2010 11:23 AM

    When Favre does retire, Haynesworth will be the new Favre for PFT.

  26. smiley says: Sep 14, 2010 11:25 AM

    Wow…iPhone4Idiots. You bash the Skins for signing him to all that money but the Titans were in on the bidding as well. We just outbid you. Now you want him back? We’ll keep him for now. Thanks but no thanks. By the way…how many Super Bowls did John Elway and Davis win without Mike Shanahan? That’s the same amount the Titans have won. You’re talking out your ying-yang. Hail!

  27. mantastic says: Sep 14, 2010 11:35 AM

    That said, Haynesworth’s demeanor at the time suggested that he wouldn’t have been in the meeting even if it involved every player, coach, and club employee — and if free food and beverages were being served. Also, it’s possible that Haynesworth has projected that same demeanor on other occasions, when coaches were trying to gather the defensive linemen for further instruction.
    Looks like Haynesworth is getting the Jay Cutler body language evaluation treatment

  28. Shinywalrus says: Sep 14, 2010 11:38 AM

    “That said, Haynesworth’s demeanor at the time suggested that he wouldn’t have been in the meeting even if it involved every player, coach, and club employee — and if free food and beverages were being served.”
    This is textbook grasping for straws. The media overreacted, so the media responds with, “Oh, well we were CLEARLY justified in our overreaction and false claims, so no big deal!”
    And as always, PFT is first to the docket to excuse away poor journalism.

  29. Ralphie says: Sep 14, 2010 11:39 AM

    @Florio says: “That said, Haynesworth’s demeanor at the time suggested that he wouldn’t have been in the meeting even if it involved every player, coach, and club employee — and if free food and beverages were being served.”
    ____________________________
    So now you’re the “demeanor” police?
    Florio, your douchebaggery is beyond reproach.

  30. turbodiesel26 says: Sep 14, 2010 11:43 AM

    Wow! When you post a story like this, is it any wonder why the Washington Post would post a fake story to see how fast you would jump on it and add your own spin to it? Here is a thought, spend more time researching actual facts, and less time trying to put your own baseless spin on non stories.

  31. Caldon says: Sep 14, 2010 11:56 AM

    After the lazy years and only playing during contract years, the stomping of the cleats to the face and now this taking 21 million dollar bonus but I’m not going to play where you want me to play attitude, the league needs to “unofficially” blackball this POS, cut him and no team sign him, let him go play in Canada or the one of the startup leagues. Get him out of the NLF.

  32. CHIEF ZEE says: Sep 14, 2010 11:58 AM

    Cut the fat Bruce!

  33. wd40 says: Sep 14, 2010 12:07 PM

    Albert did fine. The players embrace him and the staff is coming around as he learns the scheme. He would not have been on the active squad otherwise. Period!
    What I saw was Dallas dedicating two linemen to him and that mean the others were there to fill the gaps. In time he’ll be given his DE position back, and we can all embrace each other.
    I like you Florio, but these AH post are silly.
    I’m sure you’ve noticed that they get good response so why not! Look forward to tomorrow’s.

  34. pft_b1ows says: Sep 14, 2010 12:10 PM

    Why all the fuss over this guy? It’s the Redskins for crying out loud, who cares?

  35. PriorKnowledge says: Sep 14, 2010 12:14 PM

    “That said, Haynesworth’s demeanor at the time suggested that he wouldn’t have been in the meeting even if it involved every player, coach, and club employee — and if free food and beverages were being served.”
    That comment is TOTALLY uncalled for.
    Similar to convicting an innocent man with the comment, “Well, even if he was innocent this time, he probably murdered someone else.”

  36. CaptainManhattan says: Sep 14, 2010 12:27 PM

    At this point Dan Synder shouldn’t even be allowed to own a fantasy football team. I’m glad they beat the cowgirls but they are still pathetic.

  37. CountSnail says: Sep 14, 2010 12:39 PM

    It’s like watching Kevin Costner decipher the Zapruder film…… not.

  38. CowboysFansAreAllBandwagonFans says: Sep 14, 2010 12:49 PM

    That said, Haynesworth’s demeanor at the time suggested that he wouldn’t have been in the meeting even if it involved every player, coach, and club employee — and if free food and beverages were being served. Also, it’s possible that Haynesworth has projected that same demeanor on other occasions, when coaches were trying to gather the defensive linemen for further instruction.
    —-
    The media has created this entire issue with Haynesworth.. not the Redskins, not Haynesworth. And the above paragraph is the prime example of how they are doing it.
    STOP THIS STUPID CRAP YOU RETARDS!!

  39. OldDominionRedskins says: Sep 14, 2010 12:53 PM

    This is the most ridiculous article I have read on PFT, and there have been far and plenty ridiculous articles on PFT.
    “That said, Haynesworth’s demeanor at the time suggested that he wouldn’t have been in the meeting even if it involved every player, coach, and club employee — and if free food and beverages were being served.”
    ^^^
    Was this written by a 12 year-old schoolgirl for the school paper? Florio and the media have their noses up too high to completely admit that they are wrong.

  40. My Coke Can says: Sep 14, 2010 1:12 PM

    @pft blows. I care. Obviously you do to or you would not be reading or commenting on this post. Who do you cheer for….. let me guess.. cowturds.

  41. jlbay says: Sep 14, 2010 1:13 PM

    Florio I have not been one to uniformly bash you . . . I have at times disagreed with what you have written, but most often than not when you write something I think is not news worthy or accurate I simply don’t read it or move on.
    Having said that it sure seems like you have a Boner for writing negative things about Haynesworth, Roethlesberger, the JETS and a few other favorites that you clearly over post, over report and over speculate about.
    In this picture it appears to me that Haynesworth is the only defensive player, who is not suppose to be huddled in the defensive backfield meeting, paying attention to the field of play. That is not a demeanor that suggests to me that he is not interested in his team and or its success in this particular game. Quite the contrary . . . it would suggest that he is paying attention to what is taking place on the field, which would imply and distinct interest in the progress his team and the offense is making. Granted the entire field is not in view in this photo, but I don’t see any offensive huddle or coach/QB conversation taking place . . . which implies that a play has either just concluded, is about to take place or is taking place . . . and Haynesworth appears to be the only defensive linemen who gives a crap.

  42. ACS2 says: Sep 14, 2010 1:35 PM

    Haynesworth photo? Please tell me he’s not wearing crocs.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!