Haynesworth uses rare argument in holdout

Albert Haynesworth’s refusal to attend any of the Washington Redskins’ mandatory team activities flies in the face of the conventional professional athlete’s monetary dispute with a franchise. Usually, a player has had a breakout season, and believes he is now underpaid for his position, then refuses to play until a new contract arrives. Haynesworth, though, signed the richest deal in the history of defensive players in the NFL, and recently was awarded a $21 million bonus.

But because he doesn’t agree with the coaching staff and front office’s view point on his position and contributions to the team, he’s refusing to show up. Some might say because of a coaching and general manager change, Haynesworth should get the benefit of the doubt because he was promised something by the previous regime, and now those promises are obsolete. But in this day and age of countless clauses in contracts, his agent should have had it in writing that he could only play a certain position in a specific scheme. Obviously that conflicts with a coach or defensive coordinator’s belief that a player could be open to fit the needs of the team. The situation stemmed from awarding that huge contract to a noted head case, who had attitude and weight problems with the Titans.