Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-07-2010, 11:16 AM   #16
Living Legend
 
Monkeydad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: PA
Age: 35
Posts: 16,275
Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Why do we have this thread? It's already being discussed in the actual AH trade thread.
__________________
Not sent from a Droid, iPhone, Blackberry or toaster
Monkeydad is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 04-07-2010, 11:17 AM   #17
Registered User
 
SBXVII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,766
Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
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.
SBXVII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 11:19 AM   #18
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 8,292
Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster View Post
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.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 11:25 AM   #19
Registered User
 
BigHairedAristocrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,917
Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freddyg12 View Post
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.
BigHairedAristocrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 11:26 AM   #20
Registered User
 
BigHairedAristocrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,917
Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster View Post
Why do we have this thread? It's already being discussed in the actual AH trade thread.
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.
BigHairedAristocrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 11:27 AM   #21
Special Teams
 
jdc65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 246
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.
jdc65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 11:27 AM   #22
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 81,240
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?
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 11:31 AM   #23
The Starter
 
KI Skins Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: MD Eastern Shore
Posts: 2,147
Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat View Post
As I said here (New possible trade/draft scenarios), 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.
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 $32,000,000 FREAKIN' DOLLARS!!!? Secondly, Shanahan is no doubt going to remind Big Al that he is being paid a HUGE amount of money to do what the coaches want him to do to help this team win and not to do what he 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.
KI Skins Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 11:38 AM   #24
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 8,292
Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat View Post
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.
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.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 11:39 AM   #25
Registered User
 
BigHairedAristocrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,917
Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk View Post
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?
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.
BigHairedAristocrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 11:42 AM   #26
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,632
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?"
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 11:42 AM   #27
Registered User
 
BigHairedAristocrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,917
Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Quote:
Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan View Post
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 $32,000,000 FREAKIN' DOLLARS!!!? Secondly, Shanahan is no doubt going to remind Big Al that he is being paid a HUGE amount of money to do what the coaches want him to do to help this team win and not to do what he 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.
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.
BigHairedAristocrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 11:43 AM   #28
Living Legend
 
Monkeydad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: PA
Age: 35
Posts: 16,275
Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
Because that thread has gotten too big for people to read through the whole thing and join the conversation.
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:
Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat View Post
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.

Seconded.

Motion approved, Chairman, please acknowledge the vote.
__________________
Not sent from a Droid, iPhone, Blackberry or toaster
Monkeydad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 11:45 AM   #29
Registered User
 
SBXVII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,766
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.
SBXVII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 11:47 AM   #30
Registered User
 
BigHairedAristocrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,917
Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
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.
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.
BigHairedAristocrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.36513 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25