Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

Adam_Schefter: Despite rampant speculation, Redskins NOT shopping Albert Haynesworth and haven't had any trade discussions regarding him since March 31.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

[quote=REDSKINZ-RIDEORDIE;684842]Adam_Schefter: Despite rampant speculation, Redskins NOT shopping Albert Haynesworth and haven't had any trade discussions regarding him since March 31.[/quote]

TBH....it's strange to even hear talk about trading a player you've just paid 21 mil$ with even more due in the coming months....Link!

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

[quote=Longtimefan;684849]TBH....it's strange to even hear talk about trading a player you've just paid 21 mil$ with even more due in the coming months....[B]Link![/B][/quote]

This is from Twitter.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

[quote=Ruhskins;684859]This is from Twitter.[/quote]
With Twitter and Wikipedia who needs "real" sources anymore!

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

Short article about it on espn.com

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

Just saw Schefter say this on TV a few moments ago. But who knows, maybe DS trades AH for attorney fees or a nice new car before the draft. Can't believe ANYTHING right now!

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

only fools would take anything schefter says at face value.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;684911]only fools would take anything schefter says at face value.[/quote]

??

He's one of the more reliable and informed sources out there. Especially when it comes to Shanahan.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

[quote=Mattyk;684920]??

He's one of the more reliable and informed sources out there. Especially when it comes to Shanahan.[/quote]

[I][B]Because [/B][/I]of his relationship with Shanahan, he can't be trusted. Schefter reports what Shanahan tells him. Shanahan has no reason to be truthful about anything. The fact that only Schefter is reporting that Haynesworth is NOT on the market, while Claton, Reid, and JLC all say that he is, only confirms that he [B][I]is[/I][/B] indeed available.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

Schefter is a pretty accurate media source. However it's not the fact that the Skins are not actively shopping AH right now thats the issue, it's the fact the Skins even tried period.

The Eagles say the Skins tried to shop AH in the deal for McNabb. That was after March 31st. So was there a first offering prior to March 31st with AH shopped to them and they refused, or is everyone lieing about the fact that the deal started 4 days prior to Easter Sun.?

or was AH shopped to another team prior to March 31st and for who or why was he shopped?

Lastely if AH was shopped goes to show the team is not at odds about trading AH even though he supposedly has not been shopped since March 31st.

Re: 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.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

As I said [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/684798-post212.html"]here[/URL], 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.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;684955]As I said [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/684798-post212.html"]here[/URL], 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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

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

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;684955]As I said [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/684798-post212.html"]here[/URL], 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.[/quote]

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?

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

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.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

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

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

[quote=Schneed10;684947]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

[quote=Buster;684986]Why do we have this thread? It's already being discussed in the actual AH trade thread.[/quote]

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

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

[quote=Schneed10;684972]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.[/quote]

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.

[quote=freddyg12;684979]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?[/quote]

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.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

[quote=Buster;684986]Why do we have this thread? It's already being discussed in the actual AH trade thread.[/quote]

I agree with that. I feel like I'm repeating myself discussing the same thing in two (actually three, if you count the post-mcnabb trade thread) and I'm sure other people feel the same way. It would be nice if a Mod merged.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

I would be ok with a Haynesworth trade if we received a 2nd and a 3rd round pick this year. Otherwise, they should keep him this year, and see how he plays.
I would prefer to see him accept a 3-4 role and be the dominant player he can be.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

Green Bay made a pretty good transition to the 3-4 last year...

Besides we still don't know how much 3-4 we're going to see. Will it be the base D? Or will it just be part of the mix?

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;684955]As I said [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/684798-post212.html"]here[/URL], 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.[/quote]

I think you're on the right track with your thinking in the sense that Shanahan and Allen are practical executives who are trying to build a football team. With that in mind, I believe that they would make any trade that they think would give this team a better chance to win now and in the future.

I don't buy the theory that they are playing mind games with Big Al. First of all, what possible leverage could they have on someone they have already paid [U][B]$32,000,000 FREAKIN' DOLLARS!!![/B][/U]? Secondly, Shanahan is no doubt going to remind Big Al that he is being paid a [B][U]HUGE[/U][/B] amount of money to do what the coaches want him to do to help this team win and not to do what [U]he[/U] wants to do.

Now, if Big Al were to embarrass himself by sulking and playing poorly or by becoming insubordinate and getting suspended because he didn't get his way, that would be unfortunate. But I don't think he'll do that. He just needs for some Head Coach to stand up to him and tell him to grow up and do what he's told, for the good of the team. Shanahan might just be that Head Coach.

By the way, if Big Al thinks he can still run to Dan Snyder to tell on the coach, I think he'll be disappointed to find that Snyder is unavailable to hear his complaints.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;684998]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.[/quote]

I think you're making too big of a deal about a transition to the 3-4. It might only be half our defense in 2010, we still might spend a lot of plays in the 4-3. Secondly, there's not much in the way of schematic difference for the defensive line or the corners. For the defensive line, you simply adjust from a gap control style or to an attacking style. There's not a lot of read and recognition that goes on for the defensive line. For the corners, it comes down to playing man vs zones, again not a lot of read and recognition. It's the safeties and the LBs that do the reading and reacting, they'd be the ones affected by the 3-4 transition.

I'd argue that given the LBs will be getting acquainted with new responsibilities, there would be a greater need for a dominant force along the defensive line to occupy blockers and allow the LBs to make plays.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

[quote=Mattyk;685003]Green Bay made a pretty good transition to the 3-4 last year...

Besides we still don't know how much 3-4 we're going to see. Will it be the base D? Or will it just be part of the mix?[/quote]

they also were able to afford spending two first round picks on defensive players ideal for 3-4 defenses. we don't have that luxury.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

Schefter is not going to say things just to curry favors with Shanahan. It's ridiculous to not believe him because of his relationship with Shanahan.

Fact is Haynesworth was brought up as a possibility back in late January/early February when the Redskins and Eagles first talked about McNabb. But he is not being actively shopped around. Does that mean he won't be traded? No. Although, as I've said a couple of times, I don't think he's going anywhere.

They'll listen to any and all offers for anyone and if the right one comes around they'll consider it. But they're not going around saying "What can you give us for Haynesworth?"

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

[quote=KI Skins Fan;685009]I think you're on the right track with your thinking in the sense that Shanahan and Allen are practical executives who are trying to build a football team. With that in mind, I believe that they would make any trade that they think would give this team a better chance to win now and in the future.

I don't buy the theory that they are playing mind games with Big Al. First of all, what possible leverage could they have on someone they have already paid [U][B]$32,000,000 FREAKIN' DOLLARS!!![/B][/U]? Secondly, Shanahan is no doubt going to remind Big Al that he is being paid a [B][U]HUGE[/U][/B] amount of money to do what the coaches want him to do to help this team win and not to do what [U]he[/U] wants to do.

Now, if Big Al were to embarrass himself by sulking and playing poorly or by becoming insubordinate and getting suspended because he didn't get his way, that would be unfortunate. But I don't think he'll do that. He just needs for some Head Coach to stand up to him and tell him to grow up and do what he's told, for the good of the team. Shanahan might just be that Head Coach.

By the way, if Big Al thinks he can still run to Dan Snyder to tell on the coach, I think he'll be disappointed to find that Snyder is unavailable to hear his complaints.[/quote]

I dont view it as mindgames. Haynesworth has already used the skins to get a ridiculous amount of money. By making it clear to him that he won't be happy with how he's used here, we're encouraging Haynesworth to help faciliate a trade to a team he'd otherwise be less inclined to play for... like Detroit.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

[quote=Schneed10;684990]Because that thread has gotten too big for people to read through the whole thing and join the conversation.[/quote]

The public school system has failed.


How hard is it to click on the "last page" button and join in?




I vote for a Merge!

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;685000]I agree with that. I feel like I'm repeating myself discussing the same thing in two (actually three, if you count the post-mcnabb trade thread) and I'm sure other people feel the same way. It would be nice if a Mod merged.[/quote]


Seconded.

Motion approved, Chairman, please acknowledge the vote. ;)

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

Most military people know that when asked to do something you do it whether you like it or not. Most good employee's who are team players will do things that are sometimes not in their job discription.

The team picked up a NT. It's true that we don't know if he will come back healthy or not but the fact that they did pick up a NT tells me they do not intend to make Fat Al the full time NT. Everyone needs a break now and then even his fat arse did so why is it out the question for him to fill in for one play or two.

I just sit back and think how nasty this defense could be with Daniels, Kemoeatu, and AH. Then put Orakpo on one side and Offenses need to be scared.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

[quote=Schneed10;685017]I think you're making too big of a deal about a transition to the 3-4. It might only be half our defense in 2010, we still might spend a lot of plays in the 4-3. Secondly, there's not much in the way of schematic difference for the defensive line or the corners. For the defensive line, you simply adjust from a gap control style or to an attacking style. There's not a lot of read and recognition that goes on for the defensive line. For the corners, it comes down to playing man vs zones, again not a lot of read and recognition. It's the safeties and the LBs that do the reading and reacting, they'd be the ones affected by the 3-4 transition.

I'd argue that given the LBs will be getting acquainted with new responsibilities, there would be a greater need for a dominant force along the defensive line to occupy blockers and allow the LBs to make plays.[/quote]

It doesnt really matter how much we use the 3-4 vs the 4-3. My larger point was that we were a 4-12 team with Haynesworth and everyone else playing their natural positions. I'm no fan of Greg Blache, but i'm not convinced that Haslett is any better. In fact, I don't really think he is. Whether its the 3-4 or 4-3 Defense, Our offense is going to be the strength of this team in 2010 and probably during Shanahan's entire tenure here. McNabb is useless to us if we dont protect him and give him playmakers. If we do both of those things, and let the Shanahans work their offensive magic we'll regularly score 28-31 points per game. That's enough to win 10 games or so. Infusing our offense with talent should be our #1 priority. Even if we have to do so at the "expense" of a defense in transiton.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

[quote=SmootSmack;685026]Schefter is not going to say things just to curry favors with Shanahan. It's ridiculous to not believe him because of his relationship with Shanahan.

Fact is Haynesworth was brought up as a possibility back in late January/early February when the Redskins and Eagles first talked about McNabb. But he is not being actively shopped around. Does that mean he won't be traded? No. Although, as I've said a couple of times, I don't think he's going anywhere.

They'll listen to any and all offers for anyone and if the right one comes around they'll consider it. But they're not going around saying "What can you give us for Haynesworth?"[/quote]

I never meant to imply that Schefter would be lying. Shanahan lies to Schefter to further his agenda. Schefter reports it. I don't see how this is such a hard concept for some to understand. Cerrato and Zorn played things pretty straight and never really did anything to surprise anyone. Things have changed now that we have more experienced guys in their places. We can't take anything they say at face value. This is common in the NFL. Friday or Saturday, the Eagles let it be known that hey would not even consider trading McNabb within the division. On Sunday, he was a Redskin. I'd be shocked if Haynesworth is still on the team in May.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;685035]It doesnt really matter how much we use the 3-4 vs the 4-3. My larger point was that we were a 4-12 team with Haynesworth and everyone else playing their natural positions. I'm no fan of Greg Blache, but i'm not convinced that Haslett is any better. In fact, I don't really think he is. Whether its the 3-4 or 4-3 Defense, Our offense is going to be the strength of this team in 2010 and probably during Shanahan's entire tenure here. McNabb is useless to us if we dont protect him and give him playmakers. If we do both of those things, and let the Shanahans work their offensive magic we'll regularly score 28-31 points per game. That's enough to win 10 games or so. Infusing our offense with talent should be our #1 priority. Even if we have to do so at the "expense" of a defense in transiton.[/quote]

Dismantling the successful unit of our team in favor of rebuilding the other unit does not seem to me like a strategy that will yield a Super Bowl any time soon.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;685038]I never meant to imply that Schefter would be lying. Shanahan lies to Schefter to further his agenda. Schefter reports it. I don't see how this is such a hard concept for some to understand. Cerrato and Zorn played things pretty straight and never really did anything to surprise anyone. Things have changed now that we have more experienced guys in their places. We can't take anything they say at face value. This is common in the NFL. Friday or Saturday, the Eagles let it be known that hey would not even consider trading McNabb within the division. On Sunday, he was a Redskin. I'd be shocked if Haynesworth is still on the team in May.[/quote]

There is a quid pro quo relationship between media insiders and coaches/executives in positions like Shanahan. Shanahan won't screw Schefter with bad information. You're just wrong.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

I don't know about this, but it seems the relationship between Haynesworth and FO is deteriorating fast according to Jason Reid:


[B]Haynesworth to skip Redskins voluntary workouts, attend mandatory sessions[/B]

Veteran defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth plans to report to the Redskins' mandatory offseason workouts, but probably will not attend voluntary sessions, two people in the organization with knowledge of the situation said Wednesday.

Haynesworth informed the sources, who requested anonymity because of Haynesworth's poor relationship with the new front office and coaching staff, that he would return to Redskins Park for mandatory workouts under the terms of the league's collective bargaining agreement. Haynesworth, whom the Redskins have attempted to trade, also has privately told friends he does not want to become a distraction because of his impasse with coaches about their plans to use him as a nose tackle in the Redskins' new 3-4 defensive scheme.

But Haynesworth also does not intend to spend more time at the team's training complex than he must, people with knowledge of the situation said.


The Redskins would prefer to trade Haynesworth before the three-day NFL draft that begins April 22, and ideally hope to have him off the roster before their first voluntary three-day minicamp begins April 16.

Of course, the possibility exists that Haynesworth will remain with Washington and be required to play a position that he has said he has no desire to play.

Although it is highly doubtful Haynesworth would attend the non-mandatory event this month, having the two-time all-pro still in the organization during the minicamp could present an uncomfortable situation for the Redskins. Coach Mike Shanahan and defensive coordinator Jim Haslett undoubtedly would face questions about the absence of Haynesworth, who also has raised Shanahan's ire with his decision to train on his own instead of participate in Washington's voluntary offseason conditioning program at Redskins Park.

The Redskins' second voluntary minicamp is scheduled for May 7-9. Haynesworth also could skip that one without facing potential disciplinary action. The team's third three-day minicamp in June is mandatory. Haynesworth would have to report to that one.

The Detroit Lions, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Jacksonville Jaguars and Tennessee Titans -- Haynesworth's former team -- are considered his most likely destinations if he is traded, according to two people with knowledge of the Redskins' efforts to end their relationship with Haynesworth. But the Redskins have already paid Haynesworth $32 million in the first 14 months of a contract he signed in February 2009, including a $21 million bonus on April 1 that was believed to be the largest single check written to one player in NFL history.

It is believed the Redskins hope to have Haynesworth pay back some of the recent bonus he received in an attempt to persuade them to complete a trade, which Haynesworth apparently would not be opposed to as long as Shanahan remains committed to him being a nose tackle. Haynesworth's base salaries of $3.6 million this season and $5.4 million in 2011 also are guaranteed as part of the record $100 million deal -- which included a then-record $41 million in guaranteed money - he signed with the team as a free agent last year.

Haynesworth has a non-guaranteed base salary of $6.7 million in 2012, so the average of the contract in the next three years is a little more than $5.23 million. That figure is relatively low for someone who was the league's premier defensive player during the 2007-08 seasons.

While clashing last season with former Redskins defensive coordinator Greg Blache, Haynesworth confided in friends he missed working in Tennessee's aggressive scheme under defensive line coach Jim Washburn, with whom he has a good relationship. With the Titans, Haynesworth had great freedom to rush the quarterback, which helped him record 14.5 sacks combined during the 2007-08 seasons -- an eye-opening total for an interior lineman who often faced double-teams. Haynesworth also enjoyed playing under Detroit Coach Jim Schwartz, who formerly was the Titans' defensive coordinator.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

The lesson to take (or retake) from that the media folks can be wrong.

-------------
[quote=CRedskinsRule;684866]With Twitter and Wikipedia who needs "real" sources anymore![/quote]

Unlike Wikipedia, disseminating information on twitter is dependent on the member doing the disseminating, and last time I checked, Schefter was as reliable a source as there is.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;685027]I dont view it as mindgames. Haynesworth has already used the skins to get a ridiculous amount of money. By making it clear to him that he won't be happy with how he's used here, we're encouraging Haynesworth to help faciliate a trade to a team he'd otherwise be less inclined to play for... like Detroit.[/quote]

I think that's manipulative and I doubt that's the plan.

I think that they would prefer to not trade him now that they've paid the big bonus. He can be a great player for the Skins. So, I don't think they [U]want [/U] him to be unhappy with the prospect of how he might be used, I just think that they'll let him know that he'll be used in the way that the coaches see fit, for the good of the team, whether or not he likes it. How he responds to that will speak to the kind of player and man he is. How he feels about it is a personal problem.

But I could be wrong.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;684928][I][B]Because [/B][/I]of his relationship with Shanahan, he can't be trusted. Schefter reports what Shanahan tells him. Shanahan has no reason to be truthful about anything. The fact that only Schefter is reporting that Haynesworth is NOT on the market, while Claton, Reid, and JLC all say that he is, only confirms that he [B][I]is[/I][/B] indeed available.[/quote]


Shanahan doesn't sign his checks. I doubt that Schefter is going to publicly announce a report to further Shanahan's trade desires for a player. Wouldn't ESPN consider that unethical? At best it is a conflict of interest.

Reid and JLC do not have the inside track to the team. I think most people would agree with that. Everybody beats Redskins Insider to the stories now.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

The strongest case that Shanahan is going to boot Haynesworth out of here is his past conduct with other "rebels" like Foxworth or Lynch.

However, he may decide that Haynesworth may have a good point and give him a chance. We can only speculate on how likely Al is going to be here or not.

Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"
 

Sfredskins, I don't think it's deteriorating any faster then what was originally reported. Jason Reid simply repackaged the same info that was put out the week AH showed up and left not to return until the mini camp prior to draft day.