Harris or Haynesworth?

[Coltsman1788]

Is this a joke?

As of right now, we don't even know if Harris will make the final roster until we see what he has left in the tank based on the health of his knees and the fact he was a healthy scratch for the majority of last year

Haynesworthless's issues are from the neck-up and nothing to do with his sheer dominating physical ability, nor does he have any injury concerns like Harris has

If we were getting the 2006 Tommie Harris, I'd still rather the 2008 DPOY Haynesworth (assuming he's motivated)

I understand the excitement of seeing what Harris was able to do 2+ years ago, but we have zero idea what we can realistically expect out of him as of right now

This. Yeah I am glad we signed Tommie Harris because he could help our weak DT rotation but this isn't the 2006 version we are getting. It's a typical bargain basement late offseason move by the Colts to address an area of concern but doesn't put them over the top in anyway. He has had difficulties staying healthy as of late. Hopefully he can stay healthy and contribute but he isn't a game changer at this point in his career. On the other hand Haynesworth is a stud when he wants to be. His head is what is holding him back but talent wise there is really no comparison between the two. If Haynesworth decides to show up in New England they will be a force to be reckoned with on D.

[BlueCrew]

Okay, I must be coming off as a huge Hanyesworth fan cause it seems like I'm defending him as a person, but I'm not. Just as a player/businessman. (It's sad to think of players like that, but that's how a lot of guys consider themselves nowadays).. BTW the Gurode incident is a big deal, and I actually DO remember this now after watching the video, and I'm still shocked he didn't get tossed from that game, and he probably should've been suspended for the whole season IMO. I'm just saying that I feel like all of Haynesworth's baggage isn't as big of an issue for his on-the-field ability, in the right system. i.e. Haynesworth will play better this year for the Pats then Tommie will play for us this season. Haynesworth is one of those guys that plays best in contract years, (Not a good quality) and since he actually has something to prove right now, I think he's going to have a couple really productive years before it starts going down hill. (ala Randy Moss in NE)

If he were a true team player and wasn't concerned only with his stats (which would lead to bonuses) then he'd learn to play the position the way the coaching staff wanted him to so that he would fit into the system

It's not a stats issue, it's a 'let your best players play to their strengths.' For a 3-4 DT to have opportunities to get sacks requires good OLBs, elite DEs, or just an overall decent front seven. I seriously don't think he would've even played that good if he showed up day 1. But that's just opinion.

He refused to learn to play the position the way the coaching staff wanted him to. Once upon a time, the coaches were the one in charge...not the players.

Shanahan was in charge, and he hardly played him. = Coach is still in charge. It's not like he got there and thy're like "Albert, we really think you'd play better in a 3-4." It was Shanahan get's stuck with a player that doesn't fit his scheme very well, and didn't really care about not using him.

By the way; Look at Carson Palmer: Nobody is criticizing him for his hold-out with the Bengals, yet it's not even the same circumstances that Haynesworth was in: Haynesworth got blind-sided by a defensive change after the only reason he signed with the team was because he was going to be featured in their 4-3. (That, and roughly $80m) Palmer is holding out cause he wants to be traded... That's it. Just wants a trade.

Basically, I'm saying this isn't something uncommon in the league... And it's not usually considered something that makes a person low-character.

Again you proved my point. He refused to learn the system because he didn't want to play the way the coaches wanted him to so he preferred to "take his ball and go home" like a child who didn't get their way. Just because you request a trade doesn't mean that you'll get it.

Exactly what I was saying. He requested a trade, didn't get it, and then when he tried to join the team Shanahan wanted him punished further, thus the whole physical incident.

Really? You think call signs are the only thing he'd have to learn to switch from a 4-3 to a 3-4?!? Really? Thank you for pointing out that nickel means 5 db's...I had no idea [/sarcasm]. A standard Nickel defense is 4 DL, 2 LB and 5 DB's. However even if a 3-4 team uses a nickel package of 3 DL, 3 LB and 5 DB's then usually at least 1 of the LB's are also going to be rushing the passer.

A switch from a 4-3 to a 3-4 isn't as big for someone who plays DT as it is for the LBs or the DEs. It's mostly who you match up with along the line. I explained what the Nickel was because in a different thread I was talking about formations and some of the people were lost. I wasn't saying you don't know what a Nickel is, I'm just explaining it fully cause we're not the only two people in here, and not everyone knows what a Nickel (which actually shocked me a bit, I must say.) As for a 3-3-5, not everyone rushes 1 LB, but even when you do rush a LBer that's not near the same impact as having four specialized Down-Linemen.

[J@son]

Getting late so I'm not posting another lengthy post right now...just wanted to point out that Haynesworth did get ejected from that game. And as for your response to the explanation of the nickel defense, that's fair. I apologize for assuming you were simply being condescending. It's said all the time that tone is easily misunderstood in written text and I clearly mistook the tone you took when explaining the nickel.

I do still believe there is a bigger learning curve than you're giving credit for in going from a 4-3 to a 3-4. And I will admit that my comment about him being disgruntled about not getting his stats is purely speculative, but considering the way contracts are structured now-a-days with base salary and extra added incentives based on stats, making the pro bowl, etc I do think that at least was a part of him being so disgruntled. For those who are well educated in different defensive formations know that the NT's job in a 3-4 is primarily to take up space and they are not going to rack up the same type of stats in tackles, sacks etc as a DT in a 4-3 scheme. I recall hearing and reading that that was a part of the reason he was so upset about the switch to the 3-4 though I have no links to give concrete evidence to that fact.

Also I think that Superman made an excellent point in his post giving the Warren Sapp example.

We certainly disagree on the Haynesworth issue, lol, but I do respect your knowledge of the game and agree with points you've made in other threads (specific example, the "should colts change from cover 2" thread).

Oh and one last edit- you're right that having a LB and 3 down linemen rushing the passer isn't the same as 4 down lineman, but if they're already running a base 3-4 defense then they'd already be used to that. lol

[pacolts56]

Haynesworth has no red flags.

He didn't play well last season for two reasons: The 3-4 defense and Mike Shanahan.

Tommie Harris didn't play well last season for three reasons: His left knee, his right knee, and Lovie Smith.

Albert Haynesworth has more red flags than a May Day parade in Moscow.

[Zebra3]

Albert Haynesworth has more red flags than a May Day parade in Moscow.

I have got to tell you this was a truly laugh out loud moment for me. Very funny. Thanks!