Calm Down With The Silly 'Albert Haynesworth Was Cut' Story

by Brad Wells on Nov 8, 2011 6:05 PM EST in 2011 Colts Analysis

Listen folks, celebrating the Patriots cutting Albert Haynesworth as some kind of 'proof' that signing free agents is TEH SATAN! is just going to make you look silly and make me waste time making you look silly.

For starters, the whole reason the Pats made the trade for the disgruntled and orca-shaped defensive star was because Haynesworth was a low risk, high reward player they could add into their defensive rotation. Bill Belichick was switching New England from a 3-4 to a 4-3 during training camp this year, and Hayensworth is the best 4-3 DT in football when he's motivated and healthy. To get him, all NE had to give up was a 5th round pick in 2013.

Essentially, they gave up nothing to get a guy who cost virtually nothing and who they could cut at any time should he not produce on the field. Low risk, high reward. Here's what I wrote way back on July 28th (which seems like 40 years ago):

A note to Chris Polian and the Colts front office: These are the moves championship-caliber teams make to stay at a high level. As currently constructed, the 2011 Colts cannot beat this Patriots team. You need to start making moves, or you are going to have to deal with some testy fans in Indianapolis this year.

I mean, seriously. All it took to get this guy was a fifth-rounder in 2013. (shakes head at futility of Colts front office)

The Colts travel to New England to face the Patriots December 4th.

Thee months later, the Colts are 0-9, and the Patriots are 5-3.

Haynesworth did nothing to hurt the Patriots in the win column, and they don't owe him any big payday after jettisoning him today.

Again, as is often said around here by schmucks like me, building a team with free agents as the core is not wise. Augmenting an already established core of players with a few key free agents is smart, especially if those free agents are low risk, high reward.

Railing against free agency in general is utter silliness. If you still want to rail and rant, fine. Whatever. The same group of you who are cheering Haynesworth's waiving now were all excited and bouncing around like coked-up kittens back in August when the Colts got Tommie Harris via free agency... only to cut him a month later.

Oh, and the Colts are still winless. Just FYI.

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

The Patriots also have to pay him the remaining 1.5 million dollars if he isn't claimed.

So yeah, there’s that.

by James Broschat on Nov 8, 2011 6:06 PM EST reply actions

oh wow

robert kraft is gonna go broke

by BLOODontheTRACKS on Nov 8, 2011 9:41 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Free Agents

I don’t have a problem with signing free agents to cheap, one year deals. After the year is over, they can be reevaluated and perhaps signed long-term. For example, if the Colts offer a long-term deal (2-4 years) to Jamaal Anderson, I would be fine with that. He feels a need (run-stuffing DE) that the Colts have needed for quite some time.

However, giving out multi-year, multi-million dollar deals to people who have never played in your system is not smart. Trading away draft picks (no matter how far out in the future) is not smart.

You’re right. I was happy when the Colts signed Tommie Harris. Why? Because it was not a long-term commitment and they gave up nothing.

by ColtsPensacola on Nov 8, 2011 6:28 PM EST reply actions

So $4 mil over two years for Collins is "wasted"

But $1.5 mil and a 5th round pick pissed away on Fat Albert is “virtually nothing”.

What do you call the $2.8 mil spent on Ochocinco’s whopping <2 receptions per game? Or should that be $4.9 mil since they can’t cut him without eating another cap hit in 2012?

And tell me how the Pats would be any less than 5-3 without Albert and Ochocinco. Or how the Colts would be more than 0-9 with anyone else they could have had for $2 mil a year.

I know you’ll go to any lengths to make the Colts FO look bad but I didn’t think that included becoming a Patriots apologist.

Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.

by szquirrel on Nov 8, 2011 6:40 PM EST reply actions 8 recs

So true.

One of the only differences between the Pats and Colts this year is a healthy QB.

I don't always drink beer....but when I do, I prefer Dos Equis.

by AceOfSpades on Nov 8, 2011 9:17 PM EST up reply actions

Haynesworth did cost the pats a game

At least that’s what’s being reported. Haynesworth quit on the team and Jacobs TD was directly related to Haynesworthlesses lack of effort.

BBS might want to read a little before commenting.

by underdogg on Nov 8, 2011 11:16 PM EST up reply actions

actually a 5th round pick is something….it’s a 5th round pick dumbass.

If he would have panned out you would have been the first one bitching about how the COLTS could have had Albert for a 5th round pick and they dropped the ball.

whats typical is your bullshit rationale behind any FO desicions that you don’t like. The reason you blog and don’t have a “FO” position is maybe because you still live in your momz basement.

PINHEAD !!!!

by Ralla32 on Nov 8, 2011 6:48 PM EST reply actions

I don't get it.

I disagreed with the notion that these signings were worthy from the very beginning. I knew they wouldn’t pan out, but why is everyone so intent on proving others wrong? Who cares? We’re 0-9, dead in the water, and clouded with uncertainty, yet the Patriots are 5-3 and in a dog fight for their division.

When something doesn’t pan out for the Patriots, I love it. However, I’m more focused on my team and it’s troubles.

Coltsider.com - Editor

by Stew Blake on Nov 8, 2011 7:20 PM EST reply actions

because

BBS is the first to say “i told you so”

by PMoney on Nov 9, 2011 8:31 AM EST up reply actions

If the Colts would have spent ...

Around 2 million bucks and gave up a 5th round pick for someone they then CUT in week 9 … He would write an article saying how “STUPID AND INEPT THE COLTS FRONT OFFICE IS” … It’s ridiculous…

by AJ Colt on Nov 8, 2011 8:07 PM EST reply actions 2 recs

That's the point.

by coltsfoot85 on Nov 8, 2011 8:52 PM EST reply actions

Or the Colts didn't get Haynesworth..

Because he’s a fat, out of shape, lazy bum that contributes nothing to a football team. Now that I think of it, that’s probably why the Colts and pretty much every team in the league didn’t (and now the Patriots) don’t want him.

by Coltsfan1345 on Nov 8, 2011 10:13 PM EST reply actions

The Colts should get him to not play him. He could be the next Tryon at DT when Nevis gets re-injured again this week and they cut him in a week or two when DT gets super thin.

by tapper on Nov 8, 2011 11:07 PM EST reply actions