Have the Redskins really changed?

Do you know a single Redskins fan who had a problem with the team's offseason strategy? OK, so maybe relying on Rex Grossman and John Beck wasn't the best of ideas, but not selecting a quarterback is also what enabled the Redskins to end up with several quality picks while selecting 12 players in last year's draft. The other moves?

- Dealt Albert Haynesworth to the Patriots for a fifth-round pick in 2013.
- Traded Donovan McNabb to the Vikings for a sixth-round pick in 2012 and a conditional pick in 2013.
- Signed Oshiomogho Atogwe to a five-year, $26 million deal ($9 million guaranteed).
- Signed Stephen Bowen for five years, $27.5 million ($12.5 million guaranteed).
- Re-signed Jammal Brown for five years, $27.5 million ($8.25 million guaranteed).
- Acquired Tim Hightower from the Cardinals in exchange for Vonnie Holliday and a late-round draft pick.
- Agreed to terms with Chris Chester on a five-year, $20 million contract ($6.5 million guaranteed).
- Signed Barry Cofield for six years, $36 million ($12.5 million guaranteed).
- Traded Jeremy Jarmon to the Broncos for Jabar Gaffney.
- Brought back Santana Moss with a three-year, $15 million deal ($6 million guaranteed).
- Signed Josh Wilson to a three-year, $13.5 million deal ($6 million guaranteed).
- Signed Sav Rocca.

I believe that's most of the Redskins' non-draft moves last year. Nothing too horrible, right? Getting anything of value for Haynesworth and McNabb was surprising given their awful tenures in Washington. The Atogwe signing doesn't look that great, and he may end up as a cap casualty (in part because of the presence of DeJon Gomes). It also doesn't help that he hasn't been able to stay healthy. Moss took a step back last season and finished with the lowest receiving yards in a season (584) since 2002-2003 when he had just 433. He also missed four games with a broken hand. Brown wasn't that special either and could be replaced if the Redskins draft a tackle or sign one via free agency.

But the Bowen, Cofield, Wilson, and Rocca signings were all upgrades, and Chester played competently at times in the Redskins' stretch-running attack. They also picked up Hightower and Gaffney for basically nothing since Holliday and Jarmon weren't going to make the final roster anyway.

So are you buying the argument that the Redskins aren't the "same old" team? ESPN's Dan Graziano argues that point and also that signing Peyton Manning wouldn't require a shift in this new, different philosophy:

In the meantime, there is free agency, and although the Redskins didn't make a big splash last summer, they did very well in free agency. Shanahan targeted specific players in the 27- to 29-year-old age group -- guys he believed were already established but still young and hungry enough to grow and develop with the team. He plans to use the same formula this year to address wide receiver, offensive line and the secondary. He's not after the biggest name out there. He's after the specific types of players he believes his team needs in order to build a consistent, year-to-year winner.

Which brings us back to Manning, one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time. Shanahan's not going to give Manning a big, five-year, huge-money deal. I don't think anyone is, given the health concerns, but if the market gets that crazy, I don't expect the Redskins to play in it. It just wouldn't be smart. Bringing Manning in on a one-year or two-year deal with incentives to allow him to prove he's healthy is smart, because if Manning is healthy, he's worth as much as any quarterback in the league.

I'm on record as being against a potential Manning deal, but I also agree with Graziano that bringing in Manning could work, depending on the contract, its length, and whatever other moves the Redskins make in free agency and in the draft. If the Redskins do sign Manning, they also must draft a young quarterback at some point, along with not going overboard by simply building the team around Manning. After all, his career could be over in the near future, if it's not already over (which hopefully is not the case).

At the moment, I'm on board with the direction of this team. The Redskins weren't much fun to watch last season, but they also are building a young, talented nucleus -- something they haven't done for a long time. I loved just about everything from the 2011 offseason, but I won't be completely convinced in the direction of this team until seeing what they do in the next few months. There are several important choices to make, primarily what exactly to do at quarterback, but that's also why Shanahan is making big money.

Redskins deal Haynesworth to Patriots

As I was just finishing my previous post on yesterday's Redskins moves, I saw this: According to Adam Schefter, the Skins have traded Albert Haynesworth to the Patriots in exchange for a fifth-round pick in 2013.

To get anything at all for Haynesworth at this point seems like a solid move, even if it's a fifth-round choice in a couple years. The Redskins have now dealt away their two biggest headaches from last season: Donovan McNabb and Haynesworth. And by trading with the Patriots (always a little scary because of the Bill Belichick angle), the Skins also succeeded in keeping Haynesworth away from the Eagles or any other NFC East team.

So long, McNabb and Haynesworth. And congratulations, Redskins, for finally making these deals happen.

Quick note on the Haynesworth saga

So the Redskins have suspended Albert Haynesworth for four games, which also happens to be the rest of the season. Claiming that Haynesworth demonstrated "conduct detrimental to the club," the Redskins are also saying that Haynesworth had stopped talking to Mike Shanahan and that he refused to play in certain defensive packages during games. Obviously there's much more behind this fiasco, and things are far from over.

It would be hard to argue that any single party in this matter handled things well. It's also possible that the only reason the Redskins didn't release or trade Haynesworth this season was to build a case against him, including all the negative things he's done in a Skins uniform (and there's a lot of them), and go after not only the rest of his salary this season, but also some of the $21 million bonus he received before the season (in April).

Lots of fans and commentators have been talking about how it's just Haynesworth's fault or that Shanahan's huge ego is to blame. Many have also blamed Dan Snyder and the departed Vinny Cerrato for signing Haynesworth to begin with; remember, Shanahan and Bruce Allen didn't bring him in, though they knew dealing with him would be part of the job. In actuality, they're all at least partly to blame. Shanahan and Haynesworth seemed to butt heads from day one, and the trouble really began with the whole conditioning test debacle that lasted way too long. If Shanahan really didn't want Haynesworth on the team anymore, Allen could have dealt Haynesworth away to the Titans at some point during the season, but they either asked for too much in return or really weren't that serious about a trade. And Cerrato and Snyder made the huge mistake of not doing their homework and making Haynesworth the highest paid defensive player in the league two seasons ago. Switching to the 3-4 defense also looks like a huge mistake, not only because the Redskins front office had to know that Haynesworth would not be happy, but because the entire defensive unit has been abysmal.

But for those people who think that Haynesworth is only playing a small part in this matter -- and believe me, there are some people out there who think that everyone is to blame except Haynesworth -- do me a favor and watch the play below.

You've likely seen that play at least a few times by now. Is that really the guy you want to defend? Does that look like someone who loves the game of football, like he says? Or is that someone who just quit on this team and his teammates when they needed him most?

Haynesworth's appeal of the suspension should be coming soon, and this situation won't go away for at least another few weeks -- and maybe not until the season is over and the Redskins officially get rid of Haynesworth. So there's always that to look forward to.

The Skins and blowout losses

It's no revelation to point out that fans aren't fond of their teams getting blown out, especially in big games. But except for a select few elite teams, every team loses big at one time or another, like it or not. Now, I'm not saying the Redskins are an elite team, or even close to one, and I'm also not excusing their terrible, embarrassing performance against the Eagles on Monday night. But judging by some of the crazy reactions from fans, you'd think this kind of thing never happens to the Redskins, or at least hadn't happened for a long time.

But that's not true. Just going back a few seasons, the Redskins suffered two such losses that rival the 59-28 debacle against the Eagles.

Patriots 52, Redskins 7

On October 28, 2007, the 4-2 Redskins traveled to Gillette Stadium to take on the 7-0 Patriots. The undefeated Patriots were definitely thought of as the better team, but some still gave the Skins a fighting chance. Unfortunately, that hope didn't last long; the Patriots took a quick lead and didn't look back. At halftime, the Patriots led 24-0, and they kept their foot on the accelerator, eventually leading 52-0 with just a few minutes left in the game. With about three minutes left, a 15-yard touchdown pass from Jason Campbell to Chris Cooley cut the lead to 52-7, which ended up being the final score.

On that day, the Skins were completely dominated in every phase of the game. Here's the tale of the tape (Patriots numbers listed first):

Total yards: 486-224
Pass yards: 334-177
Rush yards: 152-47
First downs: 34-13
Forced turnovers: 4-1

Tom Brady finished the game 29-38 for 306 yards and three touchdowns. Oddly enough, he also rushed for two touchdowns. Jason Campbell, on the other hand, was 21-36 for 197 yards, one touchdown, and one interception. Oh, and he also lost three fumbles.

Silver lining: The Redskins beat the Jets 23-20 the very next week, but they lost four straight games afterward. But then, with Todd Collins filling in for an injured Campbell and with heavy hearts following the death of Sean Taylor, the Skins put together four straight crucial wins to earn a playoff berth. Unfortunately, they lost in the first round against the Seahawks in Seattle.

Giants 45, Redskins 12

Most fans should remember this game; it took place just last season, on another Monday night (December 21) at home. The Giants came into the game as a decent (7-6) team, but they would eventually finish 8-8 and miss the playoffs. The Skins, however, were 4-9 and not a good team at all, though they had just returned home from Oakland after a 34-13 win over the Raiders.

Just like in the Patriots game above, the Giants took the lead in no time and were ahead 24-0 at halftime. Right before the half, though, the Skins pulled off one of the worst plays in NFL history. You probably remember it: Instead of opting for a 38-yard field goal to end the half and at least get some points on the board in an awful game, Jim Zorn sent out the special teams unit to attempt a crazy Hail Mary-type pass with punter Hunter Smith -- not once, but twice -- even after the Giants were prepared to stop it (which wasn't too difficult). If the loss in Week 3 to the Lions hadn't already sealed Zorn's fate after the season, that play certainly did.



The Skins scored two touchdowns in the third quarter (with a missed extra point and a failed two-point conversion), but that was it. The Giants scored the final points of the game, a touchdown in the fourth quarter, and ended up with a 45-12 win. A terrible, embarrassing loss? Yes, definitely.

Here's the tale of the tape for that game (Giants numbers listed first):

Total yards: 387-302
Pass yards: 273-213
Rush yards: 114-89
First downs: 23-15
Forced turnovers: 3-0

The Giants didn't necessarily dominate statistically, but they dominated the Skins in every other way possible. Also, Eli Manning was 19-26 for 268 yards and three touchdowns. Campbell, though, was 15-28 for 192 yards, one touchdown, and two interceptions. He was also sacked five times.

Silver lining: Sort of. The Redskins lost their next two games and finished the season with a 4-12 record. But that also led to Zorn's firing and, more importantly, Vinny Cerrato's overdue departure. So yeah, losses aren't fun, but sometimes they lead to good things.

-----

Is there an overarching point in all of this? Maybe, maybe not. But it's clear that the Redskins are not an elite team, and they won't be until they stop making horrific personnel decisions and start keeping draft picks instead of giving them away for overrated, older players -- especially ones that don't fit a certain scheme that the team will run.

It's hard to watch Albert Haynesworth laying on the field against the Eagles (and in other games too) and think that the primary problem isn't effort or a lack of heart. But really, that's not it. The Redskins are too old at too many key positions, and they don't have solid backups behind them. That's not a defense of Haynesworth -- far from it. But until the Skins start operating differently -- and there are a few signs that maybe the Skins are, in fact, changing for the better -- these types of losses will continue to happen. And no amount of yelling or insane ranting is going to change that.

It takes time to build a consistent winner; Band-Aids rarely work.

Haynesworth opens mouth, inserts foot

It's not that I don't like Albert Haynesworth. He's probably an OK guy, but he obviously believes that he's in the wrong kind of football situation (the 3-4 vs. the 4-3) and isn't happy about it. I also don't think he's being completely honest with himself, and that was evident in his "exclusive" interview on Thursday with ESPN.

Go ahead and watch the video. I did and wasn't that impressed, particularly with this portion here from the article (pardon the long quote):

"I wanted to be the greatest defensive lineman ever to play the game," Haynesworth told ESPN's Sara Walsh in an exclusive interview on Thursday.

In the time since, the Redskins have changed coaches -- from Jim Zorn to Mike Shanahan -- and defensive schemes -- from the 4-3 to the 3-4.

The change made Haynesworth hesitate before depositing the $21 million bonus check he was given April 1.

"Yeah, check sat at my house for a couple weeks before I cashed it," Haynesworth said. "I was weighing my options about what I should do. ... Do you want to take this? Do you want to commit yourself to playing a 3-4 [defense]? Do you want to go somewhere else and try again?"

Haynesworth ultimately took the money and stayed with the Redskins. But he did protest the change by skipping the team's offseason conditioning program and a mandatory minicamp.

There are several things to take away from his quotes, but let's examine two.

First, regardless of whether the check actually sat in his house for a few weeks or not, was there even a minuscule chance that Haynesworth would not cash that $21 million check? Of course not, even if the Redskins adopted Chris Cooley's 6-2 stack monster defense (which link I can't locate right now). Who would even say something like that? (There's an easy joke to be made about why he didn't get up and cash the check; I'll let you figure it out.)

Second, take a look at the last paragraph in the block quote. Haynesworth cashed the check, which, according to his own words and logic, meant that he was going to stay with the Redskins and commit to the 3-4. And then he skipped both the offseason conditioning program and minicamp, which both contradict that he was ever actually on board with the change in defenses. No one said he had to be happy with the 3-4 defense, and he's not the only one to blame in his power struggle with Mike Shanahan. The defense has also been awful, giving up lots of yards each game, and defensive coordinator Jim Haslett could really use a dominant Haynesworth on the defensive line for an entire game. But not only hasn't that happened, but Haynesworth frequently stands alone on the sidelines, looking like he'd rather be anywhere else.

If Haynesworth really wanted to be the greatest defensive lineman ever, he would find a way to get the job done in any defense. But not only did he convince himself that he couldn't be effective in the 3-4, but when he did show up, he was, at the very least, out of shape and was already behind the other linemen in terms of learning the new plays and schemes.

Instead of occupying multiple blockers and making things easier for other linemen and linebackers to make plays, Haynesworth would rather be somewhere where he can make tackles and get sacks. Is he more effective in that style of defense? Yeah, probably, but that's not really the point.

He doesn't have to stay in Washington for much longer. He's only been with the Redskins for two seasons, and yet it feels like he's been here forever. Honestly, it wouldn't be much of a surprise if he's with another team next season (barring a lockout, of course).

I'm just tired of the drama, and I know I'm not the only Redskins fan feeling that way. Haynesworth is tremendously talented, and it's a shame that those skills haven't been on full display in Washington -- especially since they desperately need them now. But whether Haynesworth leaves after the season or not, I'm confident in saying that they won't be losing the greatest defensive lineman ever -- not even close.

Sally Jenkins blasts Haynesworth

So much for Albert Haynesworth not becoming any more of a distraction. After Haynesworth passed head coach Mike Shanahan's offseason conditioning test, many Redskins fans hoped that Haynesworth would jump on-board with what the team was trying to do and become a force on the newly installed 3-4 defense. Unfortunately, not only has Haynesworth missed several practices -- he may have been diagnosed with a "muscle condition" -- but he also recently sounded off after the Redskins latest preseason game against the Ravens.

The linked ESPN article above provides a pretty good summary of the current issue:

Haynesworth stopped practicing early Tuesday at training camp and did not practice Wednesday or Thursday. Shanahan gave varying explanations for Haynesworth's idleness each day. The coach initially said Haynesworth "just was sick," then said the cause was dehydration, then finally said it was "more of a headache than anything else."

Haynesworth said Saturday night he had something more, but he didn't specify what.

"You'll have to ask them, but I guess they'll tell you 'headaches' again," said Haynesworth, emphasizing the word by holding his fingers in the air to simulate quotation marks. "It was part of it, but it wasn't all of it. They left out a whole lot of stuff."

Haynesworth was also mad for having to play in the second half with a bunch of reserves: "I'm a ninth-year pro. I don't think I should have been out there in the third quarter."

Predictably, Shanahan stuck to his guns when it came to Haynesworth and practice:

"Albert has gotten away in the past with playing without practicing," Shanahan said. "That will not happen under this regime. If he's going to play, he's going to practice, and that is the same with every player here. The days of him playing without practicing are over.

If Shanahan's comments weren't straightforward enough -- and if the feeling among fans hasn't turned sour enough on anything to do with Haynesworth just yet -- Washington Post columnist Sally Jenkins raked Haynesworth over the coals this morning for failing to grow up and take a leadership role on the Redskins. You should really check out the entire column, but here were a few of her comments:

Shanahan's insistence that Haynesworth get himself into "football shape" isn't some head game he's playing. It's not some ruse to recoup Haynesworth's $21 million offseason bonus check, or some petty little punitive measure by a martinet. It's a matter of non-negotiable, foundational values to Shanahan. To know that, all you have to do is read just a few pages of Shanahan's book, "Think Like a Champion." In fact, just read the dedication. It's to his wife, Peggy. You might expect a love note. Instead, it thanks her for her "commitment, dedication, and sacrifice." Apparently the head coach's wife has more of those qualities than the highest paid member of the Redskins defense. Shanahan can't stand for that - and he won't.

In the past, Haynesworth may have been able to outmaneuver Redskins coaches to get what he wants. But for the first time in years, the coaching staff and front office are on the same page and seemingly stand unified on this issue. Haynesworth can't win this battle, and he's certainly not gaining any allies either.

Maybe Shanahan isn't so mean after all

So Albert Haynesworth has failed Mike Shanahan's conditioning test twice in a row, and on Saturday morning he didn't take the test because of some swelling in his knee. Shanahan said that he wasn't sure when Haynesworth would be able to take the conditioning test again:

"I don't know; it all depends on how the knee is, how he's feeling. I never said he had to take the test every day. We want to get you in football shape and when you feel like you can pass the test, we'll let you take it and if you pass it, we'll let you practice with the team."

Seems fair, right? Haynesworth missed just about all of Shanahan's offseason program, so Shanahan is forcing him to pass this test to prove he's in shape enough to participate in practices. Sure, Shanahan is likely upset that Haynesworth basically skipped his program, but he's using a test that Haynesworth should be able to pass.

And just in case you thought the conditioning test is unfair, Titans' coach Jeff Fisher has admitted that his team uses a very similar test as well. Here's what Fisher had to say, according to Redskins Insider's Jason Reid:

"That's the test we do - the 300-yard shuttle with a recovery time and then another one. What we do is ... if you've made a minimum number of offseason workouts, then the test is modified.

"Those that have been here for at least eight offseason workouts, it's a 300-yard shuttle, [but] they will run 50-yard increments instead of 25-yard shuttles, so it's a little bit easier. The 25-yard, 300-yard shuttle is an appropriate test for what kind of shape you're in."

There you have it -- similar workout under similar circumstances. So, yeah, Shanahan might have it in for Haynesworth because of how he treated Shanahan's offseason program, but if Haynesworth passes the conditioning test, he'll be able to practice -- case closed. Whenever that will be, though, remains to be seen.

Stump Mitchell: 'Clinton could've worked harder'

Besides Albert Haynesworth, one of the biggest targets of criticism this season was certainly Clinton Portis and his apparent lack of conditioning. Portis was occasionally seen gasping for air on the sidelines after a 10-yard run (though there weren't many of them) and didn't seem to be as in shape as the Portis of earlier seasons.

Stump Mitchell, the Redskins running backs coach the last two seasons who is now leaving to take the head coaching job at Southern University, offered similar thoughts when asked to reflect on Portis, according to an article in The Washington Post.

Said Mitchell:

"That's the only disappointment that I'll have. The fact that I couldn't persuade Clinton to do it a different way," Mitchell said Monday. "I want Clinton to be the best back in the league. But in order for that to happen, you have to prepare for it. But I don't know if that's what Clinton wants to do." . . . Asked if Portis's practice habits and offseason conditioning have held him back, Mitchell said: "That's a slam dunk. Clinton could've worked harder."

"He's got to do that," Mitchell continued, "and [owner Daniel Snyder] has to understand that that's what has to be done. In order for the Redskins to be successful, that's what Clinton has to do. He has to change the way he's done things in the past in order for them to be successful as a team."

Depending on the cap situation and what new head coach Mike Shanahan decides, the Redskins may or may not cut Portis. But, according to the same article, "if [the Redskins] released [Portis] before June, the team could still face a cap hit of as much as $14.8 million." Ouch.

Speaking of production, or lack thereof, it's hard to argue that the offensive line wasn't holding the Redskins offense back this season. The offensive line was the weakest part of the team -- and the most in need of an upgrade. But in terms of run blocking, the line wasn't nearly as bad in that department as in trying to protect Jason Campbell (and failing miserably). I mention this because as far as Portis's yards per carry average goes, his numbers have been fairly consistent. Here are his YPC numbers in his six seasons in Washington:

2004-2005: 3.8
2005-2006: 4.3
2006-2007: 4.1
2007-2008: 3.9
2008-2009: 4.3
2009-2010: 4.0

It's impossible to tell how much better Portis could have been if he completely devoted himself to getting in the best shape possible, especially with the beating he's taken since joining the Redskins. But we'll never know that.

The best thing Portis can do now to remain with the Redskins is to work as hard as possible to prepare for the upcoming season. Even though he's older now and isn't the same player he was back in 2002, maybe he'll get some motivation from this: In his two seasons in Denver, Portis averaged 5.5 yards per carry and ran for over 1,500 yards in both seasons. If anyone can get a little more productivity out of Portis, it's Shanahan.

Reflecting on the Redskins' loss to the Panthers

After the Panthers scored the last 18 points to sneak past the Redskins 20-17 yesterday, I have to be honest: I was mad, but I wasn't surprised at all. When the Skins went up 17-2, it was more of a mirage than anything. DeAngelo Williams's fumble (recovered by Albert Haynesworth) on Carolina's first offensive play set the Redskins up with excellent field position at the 13 yard line, as did DeAngelo Hall's interception in the third quarter that he returned 44 yards to the Carolina 1. So by forcing two turnovers in Carolina territory, the offense only had to go a combined 14 yards for two touchdowns -- that's 14 points. The Redskins scored only three more points, which is completely unacceptable. But is it shocking? No.

And that's the level the Redskins are at right now. The offense is so terrible that basically being spotted 14 points wasn't enough to pull out a win. Besides not scoring enough points, the offense had only 198 yards of total offense. Nice work, guys.

Other notes:

• Let's start with the good. The defense forced two turnovers and held the Panthers to 248 total yards. Carolina's running game was more than held in check by the Washington defense: On 32 carries, the Panthers averaged only 2.7 yards per carry. Carolina's longest drive of the game was also only 57 yards, and when Carolina scored three times in the second half, their drives were relatively short: 40 yards (TD), 38 yards (FG), and 12 yards (TD).


• Andre Carter had 2.5 sacks, and Brian Orakpo had half a sack. The Redskins forced a decent amount of pressure on Jake Delhomme, who looked average at best. So the defense didn't give up much yardage, forced two turnovers to set up the offense, and rushed the passer effectively -- which is basically what everyone has wanted from the defense. And it still wasn't enough to get a win.


• Jason Campbell finished the game 17-23 for 145 yards and a touchdown. For the amount of pressure he was under -- the Panthers had five sacks -- he was pretty efficient. But besides the touchdown pass to Clinton Portis, there weren't many, if any, explosive plays in the passing game.


• The rushing attack was ineffective. Portis ran 19 times for only 57 yards -- a three-yard average. He did run for a touchdown though, so that's something.


• No receiver had more than 44 receiving yards. Those 44 yards came from Santana Moss, who had four catches. The rest of the receiving corps combined for 13 catches and 101 yards. Shockingly, Chris Cooley failed to catch a pass, and I don't remember Campbell throwing his way even one time, but I could be wrong.


• As mentioned before, the Panthers had five sacks, and the offensive line looked really bad. Losing Chris Samuels so early in the game was a significant loss. The line failed to open up many holes for Portis, and by pushing the Skins' line back inside the five, the Panthers forced a safety. The Redskins have to have the worst offensive line depth in the NFL.


• Shaun Suisham made his only field goal attempt, and Glenn Pakulak filled in for Hunter Smith with an average game. The biggest play of the game, though, came when a player was pushed into Byron Westbrook on a punt return. The ball bounced off Westbrook and was recovered by Carolina deep in Redskins' territory. It's hard to believe that an opposing player can just shove a blocker into a returner, but these are the kinds of plays that happen to the Redskins on a routine basis. Losing teams put themselves in situations like that.


• The Redskins' clock management and Jim Zorn's carelessness with timeouts was terrible. When the Redskins needed to stop the clock late in the fourth quarter, all of their timeouts were gone.


• DeAngelo Hall's inability to tackle Jake Delhomme in the open field with the game on the line was hard to believe. Even Deion Sanders was (probably) shaking his head after that tackling attempt.

Now 2-3, the Redskins face the Chiefs, another team seeking its first win, at home on Sunday. If Kansas City wins, the Redskins will have allowed three teams to gain their first victory against them (not counting the Giants in the season opener).

Zorn, Redskins should embrace winning ugly

To put it mildly, the Redskins (particularly the offense) have struggled in the first four games of the season. They lost on the road to the Giants by six, beat the Rams at home by two, lost to the Lions by five, and beat the Bucs by three, meaning they're 2-2 even though they've been outscored by six points. The loss to the Giants is understandable: They're 4-0 and look like one of the NFL's best teams. But the other three teams are a combined 1-11 on the season.

In the next two weeks, the Redskins play at Carolina and at home against Kansas City. By the way, those two are a combined 0-7. But as the Redskins' early play has indicated, opposing teams' records don't really mean a whole lot. The Redskins have played down to their competition (unless they're just a bad team too), but they were also an onside kick away from getting the ball back against the Giants and potentially having a chance to score some more points. They were outplayed in New York, but they still lost by less than a touchdown. So, while the Redskins could have lost all four of their games if they didn't make a few key plays, all of their games have been winnable and have at least been competitive in the fourth quarter.

Anyway, here's the point: The Redskins have flaws. Every team in the NFL does, but the Redskins' flaws are more obvious than most: the offensive line is pretty bad; they can't (or haven't been able to) run the ball effectively; besides Santana Moss and Chris Cooley, other receivers haven't stepped up and haven't scared opponents; Jason Campbell sometimes holds the ball too long and doesn't make quick decisions; and the defense can't always get pressure on the quarterback and until recently has struggled to force opposing offenses off the field on third down. I know I left some out, but those are the major concerns.

As you probably have noticed, most of the correctable problems are on the defensive side of the ball. Rookies Brian Orakpo (15 tackles, two sacks) and Jeremy Jarmon (three tackles, one forced fumble) seem like they can get pressure on the quarterback and should keep improving. Albert Haynesworth has been criticized harshly at times, but he's doing a pretty good job occupying blockers inside. Chris Horton, LaRon Landry, and Reed Doughty have, so far, formed a solid group of safeties. Even Justin Tryon showed in the win over Tampa Bay that he's making some strides, taking over the nickel corner role for Fred Smoot and recording a sack. And, of course, London Fletcher is a tackling machine (leads the NFL with 52 tackles).

Obviously, though, the offense has been awful -- 27th in points scored (14 points per game). Jason Campbell has been about average, ranking 16th in quarterback rating (85.5), ninth in completion percentage (65.3), 11th in passing yards (963), and t-11th in touchdowns (five). But after his three-interception performance on Sunday, he's tied for the fourth-most interceptions with five and has been sacked eight times.

As for other individual performances on offense, Moss has 17 catches for 293 yards (10th among wide receivers) and two touchdowns. Cooley has 22 receptions for 254 yards (third among tight ends) and two touchdowns. Portis has the 10th-most rushing yards among running backs with 281 yards, but his 3.9 yards-per-carry average isn't even in the top 25 among qualified rushers. Part of that is certainly due to the lack of running room, but not every offensive line in the NFL is that much better than Washington's line.

But besides those three skill players, the Redskins really don't have any other weapons. No other running back has done much of anything, and Malcolm Kelly, Devin Thomas, and Fred Davis have a combined 10 catches for 82 yards. That's it. Oh, and Antwaan Randle El had a good first game against the Giants (seven catches, 98 yards), but since then he only has six catches for 60 yards -- and he didn't catch a single pass against the Bucs.

It's also worth noting that Rock Cartwright is 18th in kickoff return average (23.9) while Randle El has returned only four punts for 35 yards (an 8.8-yard average).

So, again, here's what the Redskins have:

• a defense that can certainly play better even though it's allowed only 15.5 points per game (against bad teams -- but still);
• an offense that has struggled to score points even against bad defenses;
• a lack of playmakers on offense besides Moss and Cooley (and sometimes Portis);
• an average (at best) offensive line and a group of inconsistent wide receivers who cannot be relied upon;
• and kickoff and punt returners who haven't set the offense up with a short field.

Even with all of this going down, though, Jim Zorn is still striving for perfection on offense:

"I'm just going to keep pushing. It's my responsibility. I feel like I'm the one it's reflecting on as well. It's reflecting on all of us, but I'm the focal point and it should reflect on me. I'm not going to be happy with that and we're going to keep pushing. . . . It's just been something that we're going to continue to push toward. We demand perfection out here during practice, but you really do have to take . . . you have to look at what's being given during a game and that's hard to take. It really is. I still want that perfection in a game as well."

I'm pretty sure the Redskins aren't getting perfection in practice out of many of their offensive players, but statements like that are fine. Coaches are supposed to say stuff like that. But there's basically nothing that this offense will be able to do perfectly. So far, they've seemingly had to struggle for every yard and every point. And that's fine -- improvement, at least some signs of it, should be coming soon. But deep down, I'm sure Zorn knows that this offense will never be a powerhouse and won't start scoring tons of points against anyone. But there's nothing wrong with winning ugly games, even against bad teams -- the key is actually winning. Whether or not the Redskins can actually keep doing that will depend mostly on how well the defense plays.

But a few more deep touchdown passes to Moss sure wouldn't hurt.

Redskins notes for Rams game

The Redskins are favorites heading into today's home game against the St. Louis Rams, and many, if not most, fans consider it to be a must-win game. Here are some notes and storylines for the game:

• Defensive coordinator Greg Blache on Albert Haynesworth: "He's 'not Superman'":
  

  
  Blache said Haynesworth played well in the Week 1 loss to the New York Giants, and acknowledged the Pro Bowler is a "very, very, good player," but he seemed downright offended by the suggestion Haynesworth might actually help to make the players around him better. Middle linebacker London Fletcher was credited with a team-high 18 tackles in the 23-17 loss at Giants Stadium, prompting one reporter to theorize Fletcher had more freedom to race to the ball because Haynesworth often occupied two offensive linemen while being double-teamed.
  
  Well, that's a stupid theory, Blache said in effect, pointing out the Redskins had defensive tackles last season, too. Haynesworth and Fletcher each performed their duties well, Blache said, but Haynesworth was not responsible for Fletcher's success, or any other player's success. "Albert's a good player, but let's not make him King Kong," Blache said. He's "not Superman."
  

  
  I kind of understand what Blache is trying to say, but if Haynesworth is only just as good as the rest of the Redskins' defensive tackles, a lot of fans are going to be disappointed. [Redskins Insider]


• Matt Mosley explains his negative take on Haynesworth's debut:
  

  
  I may be holding Haynesworth to a ridiculous standard ($41 mil guaranteed), but what I focused on was that he looked completely worn down at the most important juncture of the game. When the Skins were actually hanging around in the third quarter, Haynesworth had to keep making his way to the sideline to catch his breath. Yes, he made some plays in the game. But when Washington truly needed to clog the middle, Haynesworth was sucking wind. Was I too hard on him? Maybe so.
  

  
  Maybe he should have written that in the first place. [NFC East Blog]


• Fred Smoot is questionable with a rib injury. [ESPN]


• Everyone on ESPN's NFL experts' panel is predicting a Redskins' win. [ESPN]


• The Redskins need to stop Steven Jackson. [Redskins Insider]


• Clinton Portis says the offense needs to stay on the field longer and be more efficient:
  

  
  "Having 40-some plays, it ain't gonna get everybody the ball. We have 40-some plays. I touched the ball 18 times, so you've got 30 more plays to get everybody else the ball. That's not gonna be enough to win. We've got to go out and have 60 or 70 plays a game; therefore, everybody can touch the ball, everybody can contribute."
  

  
  He's right. [D.C. Sports Bog]


• Haynesworth actually played pretty well against the Giants:
  

  
  Haynesworth played more than 70 percent of Washington's defense's snaps in the opener against the Giants, so it's hard to say that he was begging out of playing time. And when he was in there, he gave a good effort. Especially when it comes to pass rushing, it's pretty easy to tell when a player is out of gas and giving no effort. They can just stand at the line, move their feet a little bit and get in a stalemate with the offensive linemen.
  
  In watching Haynesworth's every snap against the Giants, I saw only one pass play where he took the play off and just stood up at the line. There was also one running play the other way where Haynesworth jogged in pursuit, instead of running at full speed. That's two snaps out of 45 plays. That's two more than you want to see, but it's not a bad effort for a 350-pounder.
  

  
  Good job, Haynesworth. [FanHouse]


• A Seahawks' blogger gives his take on the Rams and their struggles in Week 1 at Seattle. [Hogs Haven]


• Thomas Boswell says it's time to open up the offense. "But if not now, with the Rams and the Lions on deck, when?" he asks. Good point. [Washington Post]

When is $100 million not $100 million?

Earlier today while listening to ESPN 980, after hearing about Albert Haynesworth's $100 million dollar contract for what seemed like the millionth time since he signed with the Redskins in February, my frustration has boiled over. I know it's easy to focus on the $100 million number. It's a lot of money. It's a shiny, eye-catching figure.

Most of the comments about Haynesworth and his contract over the last few months have been something like, "Daniel Snyder paid $100 million to a defensive tackle in his eighth season? He'll never earn that much money!" or "Haynesworth hasn't played in a full season since 2002. He's not worth $100 million!" Those criticisms would at least be reasonable if not for the fact that too many people are focusing on the dollar figure. Why is that unreasonable? Because he's not going to make $100 million.

I hate to re-post information that was covered a while ago, but too many fans, writers, and commentators seem to forget the specifics of Haynesworth's deal:

League sources told ESPN's Chris Mortensen that a $29 million "poison pill" in the fifth year of Haynesworth's contract effectively makes it a four-year deal worth $48 million. The Redskins would owe Haynesworth a lump sum of $29 million in salary and bonuses in 2013, the fifth year of the deal. It is unlikely the team will pay the full commitment of $100 million over seven years unless the contract is re-negotiated. Haynesworth will receive $41 million in guaranteed money.

A four-year deal worth $48 million with $41 million in guaranteed money -- still a ton of money, but not nearly $100 million. The only way Haynesworth makes anything close to $100 million is if he completely dominates every season he's in Washington and helps to transform the Redskins into Super Bowl contenders every season, which isn't likely.

And if he somehow does that, he'll be worth a lot more than $100 million.

Tom Coughlin is a nice guy

Earlier today Dan Steinberg of the D.C. Sports Bog discussed some comments from Albert Haynesworth about when Tom Coughlin (coaching in Jacksonville at the time) asked some odd questions before Haynesworth had been drafted:

The Giants, of course, are coached by Tom Coughlin, a man who had once grilled Haynesworth on his ethics before he was drafted, when Coughlin was still in Jacksonville.

"I spent three or four hours on the phone with him the day before the draft," Haynesworth said. "He kept asking me these questions that didn't quite make sense to me. He's like, 'OK, if I ask you to do something and you know it's the wrong thing to do, what are you going to do?' So I'm like, 'Well, I'll do the right thing.' And he said, 'No, do what I say.' We kind of clashed at the time. I said, 'Yeah, I don't need to go to Jacksonville.' "

Classy guy, that Tom Coughlin -- not that Haynesworth is exactly leading the league in class.

Weekly Rundown: Campbell, Vitale, Zaun

Weekly Rundown is a combination of links and brief comments on stories and topics that I couldn't get to during the week. If there's something important that I missed, don't hesitate to send an email or leave a comment.

• The Redskins improved their defense by adding Albert Haynesworth and Brian Orakpo, but the offensive line is a legitimate concern. [Shutdown Corner]


• Jason Campbell is working hard and trying to be a team leader. [Pro Football Talk]


• According to John Feinstein, Tony Kornheiser is a diva when it comes to parking:
  

  
  Last February on a Saturday morning I’d just finished working out when my phone rang. It was my pal Sally Jenkins. She was in town and she and Tony wanted to go to that day’s Maryland game to, “show Gary support.” No doubt the two of them walking in would mean the end of any further controversy involving Coach Gary Williams.
  
  “Why don’t you go with us?” she said.
  
  “I’m going to another game,” I said.
  
  There was a pause. “Can we have your parking pass?”
  
  The real reason for the call. “Sure you can,” I said. “But it isn’t on the loading dock (right next to the back door) where Tony likes to park. You’ll have to walk about 50 yards.” (Since I rarely go to Maryland games these days the only time I’d ask Gary for a spot on the loading dock would be if I HAD to go and it was snowing or freezing cold).
  
  Sally called back soon after to say they didn’t need the pass. Tony had called Gary a few hours before tipoff and Gary had gotten him onto the loading dock. [Feinstein on the Brink]
  



• T.O.'s reality show isn't really doing that well. [FanHouse]


• Delonte West almost makes JaVale McGee look normal. [Ball Don't Lie]


• The Nets are expecting Jarvis Hayes to take on a larger role next season. Good luck with that. [Nets Daily]


• Although I do agree with Gene Wojciechowski, the best way to leave Bartman alone is to stop writing about him. [ESPN]


• Maryland fails to make Dick Vitale's preseason top 40, but Duke, of course, is in his top five. [ESPN]


• Chris Mortensen offers this interesting nugget on some Minnesota Vikings players:
  

  
  As for the lovable and crazy Jared Allen, he has formed a Yahtzee league with linebackers Chad Greenway and Heath Farwell, among others. "You gotta kill some time," Allen said. "We thought about all the old games like Clue and Monopoly, but Yahtzee won out."
  

  
  As long as they're not playing on a boat, I think that's just fine. [ESPN]


• The Mottrams take down the Cooleys in a throw-off. [Mr. Irrelevant]


• Melvin Mora, Aubrey Huff, and Danys Baez have all cleared waivers. Still, I'd be surprised if they went anywhere. [Baltimore Sun]


• Jason Whitlock wrote about Jeff George -- again. [Jason Whitlock]


• Finally, Tampa Bay Rays catchers have been so bad that even Gregg Zaun offers a significant improvement at the position. [FanGraphs]

Weekly Rundown: Greinke, Josh Pastner, Haynesworth

Weekly Rundown is a combination of links and brief comments on stories and topics that I couldn't get to during the week. If there's something important that I missed, don't hesitate to send an email or leave a comment.

• Andy Katz takes a look at many of the draft decisions made by potential NBA prospects. I tend to agree with most of his comments, especially on Greivis Vasquez and how stacked Kansas will be next season. [ESPN]


• Zack Greinke wasn't all that thrilled about being featured on this week's Sports Illustrated cover:
  

  
  "There's a lot more interesting stuff going on right now," he said. "They should have something else on the cover. Playoff basketball or something else.
  
  "So it's a mistake. They'll probably sell their least amount of magazines in a long time -- except when NASCAR was on the cover."
  

  
  As always, good stuff from Greinke. And if you're interested, here's the cover. [Kansas City Star]


• Linebacker Cody Glenn, recently selected by the Redskins in the fifth round, was suspended by Nebraska for three games last season. Not only did he lie about the reason for the suspension (he said it was for a ticket scandal/incident), but he won't admit what actually happened. Very odd. [Redskins Insider]


• Let's just put it this way: Josh Pastner (31 years old), Memphis's new men's basketball coach, is a prodigy. [Yahoo! Sports]


• The Baltimore Sun fired three writers and a photographer in the middle of covering the Angels-Orioles game on Wednesday. If that wasn't bad enough, the journalists were fired over the phone. Peter Schmuck offered his thoughts on the matter:
  

  
  "Woke up this morning hoping the past two days were a bad dream. Many great people -- including sports columnists Rick Maese and David Steele -- were laid off as the Sun continues to suffer the effects of this horrible economic downturn. Of course, this recession is hitting home everywhere, but it was surreal to watch Rick and Dave pack up their stuff in the press box at Camden Yards during yesterday's game and head into an uncertain future." [The Guardian]
  



• Keith Law thinks it's time to end the Felix Pie experiment and give Nolan Reimold a chance (near the bottom of the chat). [ESPN]


• Think MLB attendance is down a whole bunch this season? Jayson Stark says it's not -- and has the numbers to prove it. [ESPN]


• Truth wonders, reasonably so, if Antawn Jamison would be willing to "swallow his pride, suppress any hubris, and come off the bench" next season if the Wizards bring in a defensive power forward in the offseason. [Truth About It]


• And could that power forward be Chris Bosh? Rook of Bullets Forever thinks it could work out. [Bullets Forever]


• Jason Reid provides some insightful information on the life of Albert Haynesworth. [Washington Post]

Haynesworth to the Redskins; Hall re-signs (updated)

After not making much of a move in free agency last year, Daniel Snyder has had no problem spending a ton of money on the first full day that teams can sign free agents.

According to ESPN and other sources, the Redskins have signed defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth to a seven-year, $100 million dollar deal, which includes $41 million in guaranteed money. The Redskins also re-signed cornerback DeAngelo Hall to a six-year, $54 million dollar deal with $24 million in guaranteed money. Haynesworth turns 27 in June, and Hall turned 25 in November; so maybe Snyder has learned that it isn't best to sign top players past their primes.

It's amazing that Snyder keeps getting the Redskins in position to sign high-priced players year after year with his salary cap maneuvering. But they're probably not done signing free agents, so I'll give a more detailed opinion/post when they're finished.

Update:

According to an article on ESPN.com, Haynesworth's deal is pretty interesting:

League sources told ESPN's Chris Mortensen that a $29 million "poison pill" in the fifth year of Haynesworth's contract effectively makes it a four-year deal worth $48 million. The Redskins would owe Haynesworth a lump sum of $29 million in salary and bonuses in 2013, the fifth year of the deal. It is unlikely the team will pay the full commitment of $100 million over seven years unless the contract is re-negotiated. Haynesworth will receive $41 million in guaranteed money.

There's not much of a chance that Snyder would pay Haynesworth $29 million for one season, so the deal appears a little better than at first glance. It's still a big cap number and a big risk, but the guaranteed money means nothing to Snyder anyway.

Just know that Haynesworth will not be making $100 million in Washington.