Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

This whole thing is overblown. Let's not make Albert out to be some huge problem child. He's not working out in the program which Shanahan doesn't prefer, but he's also said publicly that he intends to come in much better shape this year to answer his critics and get back to his pro bowl form.

If Schefter says he's not being shopped, it's true. Nobody is a better source for 'Skins news right now, he's got direct access to Shanahan, and Shanahan is not going to screw Schefter by giving him bad information.

As I said here (http://www.thewarpath.net/684798-post212.html), Haynesworth is not being shopped because he's a problem child. He's being shopped because a package of starting offensive player(s) and/or draft pick(s) will do more to help this team than Haynesworth will. We were a 4-12 team with Haynesworth. We won't be much better in 2010 if we don't dramatically upgrade our offensive line and give McNabb a playmaker or two on offense.

We've got a defense overflowing with talented players (compared to the offense, at least) and we're switching to the 3-4, anyway. the smartest thing to do is "redistribute our wealth" talent-wise to help our offense. Moving Haynesworth is about doing what's best for the Redskins and has NOTHING to do with Haynesworth's character and behavior.

As I said here (http://www.thewarpath.net/684798-post212.html), Haynesworth is not being shopped because he's a problem child. He's being shopped because a package of starting offensive player(s) and/or draft pick(s) will do more to help this team than Haynesworth will.

Right but the crux of your argument there was that even with Haynesworth, we ended up at 4-12, so therefore Haynesworth didn't have the impact we imagined and therefore we would benefit by trade.

That makes a few assumptions I don't really agree with:

- That Haynesworth will not be better this year.

- That Haslett will not use Haynesworth more effectively than Blache did. Blache horrendously misused him.

- That we can count on Kemeotu or whatever his name is to plug the gap at NT. He's returning from serious injury and is not likely to be ready at season's start.

We won't know for sure if albert will be gone, until draft day.

As I said here (http://www.thewarpath.net/684798-post212.html), Haynesworth is not being shopped because he's a problem child. He's being shopped because a package of starting offensive player(s) and/or draft pick(s) will do more to help this team than Haynesworth will. We were a 4-12 team with Haynesworth. We won't be much better in 2010 if we don't dramatically upgrade our offensive line and give McNabb a playmaker or two on offense.

We've got a defense overflowing with talented players (compared to the offense, at least) and we're switching to the 3-4, anyway. the smartest thing to do is "redistribute our wealth" talent-wise to help our offense. Moving Haynesworth is about doing what's best for the Redskins and has NOTHING to do with Haynesworth's character and behavior.

good post, though I don't know that I agree w/your "nothing" statement about Haynesworths' behavior. I think his attitude about the 3-4 has to be a factor. That also speaks to your larger point; can AH make much of a difference in the 3-4 and how much can the team improve by trading him?

I don't watch Stiffler or follow twater. I do listen to the radio. WRVA 1140 said on the morning program that Fat Al was being shopped because Shanny didn't like him not showing up for voluntary workouts, and AL didn't want to be a NT. WRVA is the big time talk radio for the central VA area. If they said it, then it's true in my book.

The work outs are one thing, Shanny is another. Not being a NT I can understand. He'd be a beast DE with Orakpo or Jarmon teeing off beside him. But a NT is a waste of money and time for him. He's more than a space eater; that is when he's not on his back.

Why do we have this thread? It's already being discussed in the actual AH trade thread.

This whole thing is overblown. Let's not make Albert out to be some huge problem child. He's not working out in the program which Shanahan doesn't prefer, but he's also said publicly that he intends to come in much better shape this year to answer his critics and get back to his pro bowl form.

If Schefter says he's not being shopped, it's true. Nobody is a better source for 'Skins news right now, he's got direct access to Shanahan, and Shanahan is not going to screw Schefter by giving him bad information.

I totally agree with you in regards to this issue being blown way out of proportion. They are in "voluntary" work outs. No matter who's the HC it's still "voluntary." AH promised to come back in shape and ready to play. Shanahan may not agree with it but he has no say in it. As long as AH come back for camp late april and is still in shape then no foul. If he comes back out of shape then I can see Shanahan being upset.

But the team is not at odds with trading him if they have to to get what they need. He was shopped to the Eagles for a much needed QB so lets not totally buy into the fact that he "won't" be traded at all. If the right deal came a long I wouldn't doubt team Shanahan wouldn't trade him. But right now they are not actively shopping him. Other teams know now though that we will gladely trade him for a good deal though, so don't be supprised if other teams who need a DE call with an offer.

Why do we have this thread? It's already being discussed in the actual AH trade thread.

Because that thread has gotten too big for people to read through the whole thing and join the conversation.

Right but the crux of your argument there was that even with Haynesworth, we ended up at 4-12, so therefore Haynesworth didn't have the impact we imagined and therefore we would benefit by trade.

That makes a few assumptions I don't really agree with:

- That Haynesworth will not be better this year.

- That Haslett will not use Haynesworth more effectively than Blache did. Blache horrendously misused him.

- That we can count on Kemeotu or whatever his name is to plug the gap at NT. He's returning from serious injury and is not likely to be ready at season's start.

Well one of my other assumptions is that not a single of our 11 starters from 2009 has ever played on a team that uses a 3-4 base defense. Last year we complained about Orakpo and Landry playing out of position. Well in 2010, everyone is going to be playing out of position. It will take time for everyone to adjust. There's going to be a huge learning curve for our defense in 2010 and I don't expect the defense to be very good at all - with or without Haynesworth.

good post, though I don't know that I agree w/your "nothing" statement about Haynesworths' behavior. I think his attitude about the 3-4 has to be a factor. That also speaks to your larger point; can AH make much of a difference in the 3-4 and how much can the team improve by trading him?

His behavior is certainly an issue, but if it werent for all the other considerations, it wouldn't be enough to even think about trading him. If we cut/traded any of our players for griping a little bit about how they were being used or not showing up for voluntary workouts, i'd be very disappointed in our management. In the end, i think moving Haynesworth is the best for Haynesworth and, more importantly, the Redskins.

But it all depends on compensation. Just like I dont think we should move Campbell if we only got a 5th round pick, I dont think we should move Haynesworth for anything less than a low first round pick or the equivalent value in a package of picks and players.

BEGIN DREAM. Ideally, i'd love to see us trade Haynesworth and Carter to the Saints and pick up Burhrod and a 2nd round pick.

Pick up Flozell Adams, trade Landry and Kelly to the Broncos for Marshall, Cooley or Davis for a 3rd rounder, trade down in the first with SF, pick up Trent and Dan Williams with our first two picks and make smart moves in the rest of the draft and i'd say we had a pretty solid team. END DREAM.