Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

[BigHairedAristocrat]

As I said here, 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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

As I said here, 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.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

Originally Posted by freddyg12

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

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.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

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.

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.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

As I said here, 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?

[Trample the Elderly]

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.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

As I said here, 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.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

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.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

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.

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 want 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.