Albert Haynesworth: I Refuse To Be 'Slave'

WASHINGTON — Albert Haynesworth said Saturday his $100 million contract doesn't make him a slave to the Washington Redskins.

In an interview with 106.7 The Fan, the two-time All-Pro defensive tackle said the big paychecks don't mean he can't push back when the team asks him to play a different position.

Haynesworth, who rarely speaks to the media, was upset this year when the Redskins switched to a 3-4 defense and told him he would be playing nose tackle.

Haynesworth protested by staying away from the team's offseason conditioning program and practices. He also skipped a mandatory minicamp and was unable to pass the team's conditioning test until the 10th day of training camp – all despite receiving a $21 million bonus on April 1.

"I guess in this world we don't have a lot of people with, like, backbones," Haynesworth said. "Just because somebody pay you money don't mean they'll make you do whatever they want or whatever. I mean, does that mean everything is for sale?

"I mean, I'm not for sale. Yeah, I signed the contract and got paid a lot of money, but ... that don't mean I'm for sale or a slave or whatever."

Haynesworth said it was agreed that he would play defensive tackle in a 4-3 system when he signed with the Redskins in 2009, but the team has since overhauled its front office, coaching staff and offensive and defensive schemes. He said he now likes the new scheme better as he works with defensive coordinator Jim Haslett.

Haynesworth made a passing reference to his disputes with coach Mike Shanahan, saying some things "went down with me and Mike," but he did not elaborate. He also said he doesn't like the spotlight and would rather be someone who can just "go to Wal-Mart and hang out."

Haynesworth implied he would be playing in Sunday's game against the St. Louis Rams. He was used as a backup in the season opener against Dallas and missed last week's game against Houston with a sprained ankle.

Comments

[SportsChump]

04:58 PM on 10/03/2010

So Maverick Carter is representing Albert Haynesworth now?

http://sportschump.net/2010/10/03/they-said-what-albert-haynesworth-on-the-redskins-evan-longoria-on-rays-fans-and-an-end-to-our-mosquito-crisis/4622/

[thinkingwomanmillstone]

10:31 PM on 09/29/2010

His comments dishonor those who have suffered slavery today and in the past.

[mmsuki]

01:25 PM on 09/29/2010

This will go over big with the unemployed listening to it.

[Pailface]

12:52 PM on 09/29/2010

This guy is EVERYTHING WRONG with professional athletes today. It’s only about the money…

They should get paid and they get paid very well, but don’t complain about it!!! I mean complaining about changing positions?!?!?

COMPLETE MORON!!!

[Workineh Abraham]

09:11 AM on 09/29/2010

No you are a slave alright, you are a slave to Greed, a slave to your diet, a slave to work ethic, etc...

[cre8ive]

11:25 PM on 09/28/2010

Dude, you have it very backwards. Slaves work and don't get paid. YOU GET PAID AND DON'T WORK!!! That doesn't make you a slave. It makes you a SLACKER!

[Steve1976]

04:30 PM on 09/28/2010

I believe it might be time for the Redskins to free this slave and find a team player.

[stunsitfel]

11:47 AM on 09/28/2010

Come join us in the regular world. You need a reality check.

[ultrabop]

10:27 AM on 09/28/2010

football IS slavery in the same way that the military is slavery, or any other enterprise where you are expected to follow directions and not have a mind of your own. it makes for a more efficient operation in a warfare or game situation, which would otherwise be even more chaotic.

but it's not slavery in the sense that it's voluntary. if he doesn't like it, get out. that's what he wants. he wants to be cut so that he can join a lousy team that doesn't ask so much for the money they will be paying him.

[Gary James]

06:33 PM on 09/28/2010

He signed the contract and took the money. Is is so bad that they want him to show up for work?

[ultrabop]

10:56 PM on 09/28/2010

exactly

[1question]

09:33 AM on 09/28/2010

...it was agreed that he would play defensive tackle in a 4-3 system when he signed with the Redskins in 2009, but... - HuffPo
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It was written into the contract, both party(s) and...their representatives agreed to all the terms and words within the agreement in 2009.

The contract signers should both honor the factors outline in the original agreement or renegotiate more terms and...potentially different compensation for any changes to the original contract.

One signer does NOT have the right to unilaterally make changes to the contract without the expressed permission of all signers...unless that right of action is part of the original agreement.

Coaches and General Managers often think the "contract" is only just 'bout the money. Mr. Haynesworth has reminded them that all the words within the contract are NOT without meaning.

Mr. Haynesworth is 100% correct and 0% incorrect (in this instance)..

[LetMeUnderstandThis]

02:08 PM on 09/28/2010

So the Skins should play a 4-3 for Haynesworth! That makes no sense at all.

[GHO]

08:48 AM on 09/28/2010

For those sticking up for Haynesworth, what is your solution to this? Should the skins coaching staff, aftr having determined that a 3-4 is the defense they will play better in, backpedal and change to a 4-3 to suit their prima donna tackle? Should ownership step in and force the 4-3?

If so, you might as well fire Shanahan now as you will have chopped his b@lls off for all to see. He will have lost the respect of the team and with it, any chance of effectively coaching it.

The players play, the coaches coach. That's how it works. If Haynesworth wants to decide on D schemes, he can retire and become a coach.

[glockman]

08:17 AM on 09/28/2010

"The Fan, the two-time All-Pro defensive tackle said the big paychecks don't mean he can't push back when the team asks him to play a different position."

Uh, er, that's EXACTLY what it means. My employer pays my salary, and so long as my orders are job related (and legal and ethical, of course), I do them without question.

[spilkus]

08:07 AM on 09/28/2010

The question is moot. If he has a clause in his contract that exempts him from playing NT then he doesn't have to. If he does not, then...McNabb is sticking up for him? So the players are precluding the Defensive Coordinator from calling plays? Sounds like Washington is doomed to the bottom of the division. Dum-Dums.
McNabb is old hat. Shanahan is old hat. Haynesworth is just dumber than a post. They shoulda stuck with Zorn for more than one season.

[onionboy]

12:46 AM on 09/28/2010

Strong in the arms and legs, weak in the heart. Today's NFL.

[flurryup]

11:41 PM on 09/27/2010

I understand his comment. He's tried to accomodate Shanahan. But Shanahan keeps pick, pick, picking. The owner signed him to a huge contract and now it seems like they want to wriggle out of it. I would tell the Skins to screw themselves. If they just wanted me to sit rather than play and still pay me, f---- 'em.

McNabb told Shanahan they needed Albert. After sunday's game they sure as h#// do. Get your money Albert and let the Skins play f-f.

[glockman]

08:18 AM on 09/28/2010

You must be a Redskins fan. Letting the employees dictate how and what work will be done is foolish.

[SonnyBono]

01:06 PM on 09/29/2010

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that Albert was active for the St. Louis game when the mighty Rams won for the second time in two years and scored 31 points on the defense that included Fat Albert when he wasn't taking a knee on the sidelines - he was also around all of last year when the Redskins went 4-12 - so the Redskins need a lot of help, maybe not Albert.