Washington Redskins: Why Is Albert Haynesworth Still News?

Josh McCainSenior Writer IJune 16, 2011

GLENDALE, AZ - SEPTEMBER 02:  Defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth #92 of the Washington Redskins stands on the sidelines during preseason NFL game against the Arizona Cardinals at the University of Phoenix Stadium on September 2, 2010 in Glendale, Arizona.  The Cardinals defeated the Redskins 20-10.  (Photo by Christian Petersen/Getty Images)
Christian Petersen/Getty Images

Yesterday evening, as I was flipping back and forth between the two local sports talk radio stations in Washington D.C., I caught the Redskins update on 106.7 The Fan.

Redskins beat reporter Grant Paulsen was mentioning the no-shows at the Redskins' player-run practice Wednesday.

To my surprise, Albert Haynesworth's name was mentioned by Paulsen.

I wasn't surprised that Haynesworth wasn't there—I was surprised that Paulsen (who is a very good beat reporter for the Redskins, mind you) would even bring up the name of which we do not speak.

I mean, after all, it's no secret that Haynesworth's days in D.C. are numbered, and once the lockout is lifted, he'll probably be either cut or traded.  My vote is to trade him to a Canadian Football League team for some Maple Syrup and a case of Molson.

So mentioning that he wasn't at the practice is like saying Donovan McNabb or Peyton Manning didn't attend the Redskins mini-camp (though former Redskin and current Colt Justin Tryon did—go figure).

However the report got even stranger when Paulsen said he texted Haynesworth to ask why he wasn't there.  Really?

Surprisingly, Haynesworth responded and said he wasn't there because he wasn't informed of the practice.

Again, no one should be surprised by this, since odds are Haynesworth won't be on the team much longer.

After Paulsen's report was concluded, Chad Dukes (co-host of the Lavar and Dukes show) spoke up and asked how much longer are we going to have to keep talking about this locker-room cancer of a football player.

Now don't get me wrong, I love Dukes—I have been a fan of his since he was on 99.1 WHFS—but come on, Chad, we're not talking about Haynesworth anymore.

I'm pretty sure the fans have moved on from him, it's just radio and Pro Football Talk who keep bringing him up.

I mean, honestly, unless they actually wanted to spark something, why would The Fan mention that Haynesworth was a no-show and why would Paulsen text him and ask why he wasn't there?

Chad did hit the nail on the head when he called Haynesworth a locker-room cancer, but that's precisely why he probably wasn't informed of the practices, because the Redskins don't want him there and don't want to talk about him.

They've moved on, and we all should, too.

I know that seems kind of odd since I'm writing an article about Haynesworth, but in all honesty, we all just need to forget about him.

Him not being invited and not showing up to the player practice isn't news—he doesn't want to be here and the team doesn't want him anymore, either. 

The only Haynesworth news worth reporting in the future should be if he shows up to training camp in his best shape ever and ready to play nose tackle for the Redskins. 

If that happens, then that's news. 

Haynesworth not wanting to participate isn't new, it's just Albert being Albert and therefore not worth reporting on.

And before I get flamed on the boards, I want to stress again that, like the work both Paulsen and Dukes do for the Fan, I just think the constant mentioning of Haynesworth (outside of defensive coordinator Jim Haslett's comments) needs to be put to bed.