Commanders Post at The Warpath  

Home | Forums | Donate | Shop




Go Back   Commanders Post at The Warpath > Commanders Football > Locker Room Main Forum

Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion


Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Locker Room Main Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-07-2010, 06:17 PM   #91
diehardskin2982
Another Year, another mess.
 
diehardskin2982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,581
Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
So I know this person who's as good a source on Haynesworth as Schefter is on Shanahan and this person says "Albert's very excited about McNabb and the rest of the additions the team has made. He's talking regularly with coach Haslett and is excited about the upcoming season."

so take that for what you will
If I was a player I would be too. For all the fabricated distractions being created, I hope he has a great year for us. All the moves that they are making should motivate all the guy's on the roster. AH at the end of his career wants to be compared to Reggie White and the only way that will happen is if he is on a conteder. For what its worth I think that Albert should call into one of these radio programs and state flat out "I want to be a Redskin and I will do everything they ask me to do on the field".... wait a sec he did do that on sirus sat radio, lol.
__________________
That got ugly fast
diehardskin2982 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 04-07-2010, 06:18 PM   #92
KI Skins Fan
Pro Bowl
 
KI Skins Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Jacksonville, Forida
Posts: 6,398
Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat View Post
Honestly, i think we WANT to ensure that Detroit takes Okung so Suh or McCoy will fall to us and we have a number of opportunities to trade down. I think this has been what we've been hoping for all along and trading Haynesworth to either team would only help ensure the draft unfolds as we want. Obviously, we wouldnt move Big Al just to make that happen, but it would be an added bonus.
You must have dreamed up that idea. The biggest hole we have is Left Offensive Tackle. Okung is a consensus Top 5 Draft Pick who plays left tackle. Why wouldn't we want him to be there so we have a chance of filling that hole? Please don't tell me that some of the other OT's in the draft are just as good or almost just as good because they're not.

We can get another draft pick by trading JC or we can trade a 2011 pick for a pick this year if someone good falls in the draft but we must have a top notch LT from somewhere to get the production we need on offense.

If Okung is gone at #4, then I agree that trading down might be a good thing to do but if he's there I believe we need to take him.
KI Skins Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 06:28 PM   #93
BigHairedAristocrat
Playmaker
 
BigHairedAristocrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,712
Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Quote:
Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan View Post
You must have dreamed up that idea. The biggest hole we have is Left Offensive Tackle. Okung is a consensus Top 5 Draft Pick who plays left tackle. Why wouldn't we want him to be there so we have a chance of filling that hole? Please don't tell me that some of the other OT's in the draft are just as good or almost just as good because they're not.

We can get another draft pick by trading JC or we can trade a 2011 pick for a pick this year if someone good falls in the draft but we must have a top notch LT from somewhere to get the production we need on offense.

If Okung is gone at #4, then I agree that trading down might be a good thing to do but if he's there I believe we need to take him.
Okung isnt much better than the next level of tackles and if we trade down, we could concievably get two of them. this is a ridiculously deep draft and we have a ton of needs. drafting okung would only fill one of them.
__________________
Dolphins get good press for saving drowning humans.But we only hear about the swimmers theyve pushed ashore.You know who we havent heard from: all the people theyve pushed out to sea.Dolphins dont know what theyre doing-they just like pushing things.
BigHairedAristocrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 06:35 PM   #94
SFREDSKIN
Living Legend
 
SFREDSKIN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pacifica, CA
Posts: 15,164
Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat View Post
Okung isnt much better than the next level of tackles and if we trade down, we could concievably get two of them. this is a ridiculously deep draft and we have a ton of needs. drafting okung would only fill one of them.
That's what I've been saying, trade down if possible and get 2 OL.
__________________
Joe Gibbs- The best coach of all time, Lombardi trophy should be renamed Gibbs.

Art Monk- Art was like an OL playing WR, doing the dirty work and not getting the glory.

Darrell Green- Best DB ever.


Purveyor of fine Filth
SFREDSKIN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 07:00 PM   #95
Defensewins
Playmaker
 
Defensewins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,749
Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat View Post
Okung isnt much better than the next level of tackles and if we trade down, we could concievably get two of them. this is a ridiculously deep draft and we have a ton of needs. drafting okung would only fill one of them.
That is not 100% true. Obviously we have to wait a couple of years to know for sure, but I am hearing more and more that in terms of a true Left Tackle that can handle the NFL speed rushers only Okung has the talent to step in right away and do ok.
Bulaga and th eothers are getting talked about as an immediate starters at Right Tackle, but they will have trouble like Robert Gallery did at Left Tackle against the speed rushers.
Either way it is all opinions at this point.
Defensewins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 07:05 PM   #96
internetcareer
Camp Scrub
 
internetcareer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alexandria
Posts: 89
Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

The only thing missing from the title of this story is the word "ANYMORE".

The Skins are not shopping Albert "ANYMORE"...since the Eagles did not want to swap and nobody else wanted a 100 million dollar attitude. With that said, it is a relief that Big Al will be dominating one side of the line because he is a monster and it takes 2 linemen to come close to stopping him. Orakpo will benefit lining up beside Big Al.
internetcareer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 07:16 PM   #97
CRedskinsRule
Living Legend
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Age: 57
Posts: 21,430
Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
So I know this person who's as good a source on Haynesworth as Schefter is on Shanahan and this person says "Albert's very excited about McNabb and the rest of the additions the team has made. He's talking regularly with coach Haslett and is excited about the upcoming season."

so take that for what you will
Clearly, your source isn't keeping up with the outstanding insiders at the Post:
Redskins Insider - Analysis: Shanahan in test of wills with Haynesworth
Quote:
And earlier Wednesday, it was learned Haynesworth probably will not attend Washington's first voluntary minicamp that begins April 16.

Haynesworth plans to participate in all mandatory offseason team events under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, two people with knowledge of the situation said. But Haynesworth would not face disciplinary action for skipping non-mandatory activities at the park.


It's one thing for Haynesworth to train on his own, which irritated Shanahan. But for Haynesworth, the Redskins' highest-paid player and arguably their most talented, to be elsewhere during a minicamp, well, I imagine that would simply be unacceptable to Shanahan.

...

Haynesworth has made it clear he does not want to play the nose. Shanahan has made it clear Haynesworth is the Redskins' starting nose tackle. In holding firm with Haynesworth, Shanahan is sending a clear message that he sets the agenda for the Redskins -- not the players. Even a player as talented as Haynesworth.
I thought it was said that AH did plan on being at the April minicamp?
CRedskinsRule is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 07:17 PM   #98
Defensewins
Playmaker
 
Defensewins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,749
Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat View Post
You must not have read my post. Getting rid of Haynesworth is not the bonus. Ensuring Suh or McCoy fell to us, enabling us to trade down out of th e#4 pick is the bonus.

If Haynesworth leaves, we'd definitely have a hole... but i'd argue we have bigger holes all across our offensive line (and potentially at WR) that need to be filled. We've made an investment in acquiring Donovan McNabb. we need to do everything we can to make that investment pay off.

When Shanahan became our HC and Haslett became our DC, we signaled that we would no longer be a defense-first team. That sign was confirmed when we traded for McNabb: Offense will be the strength of this team.
I do not agree with creating a problem to solve another. If we lose Haynesworth and opposing teams gash us for 5 yards a run next year, our season will be over. No playoffs. Stopping the run is rule #1 to any defense.

On your rather large assumption that we have signaled offense over defense is a stretch. You can believe what you want. But nobody at Redskins park has said we are an offensive team first over our defense. Our offense has sucked for a while and it is where we need the most help. Our failure over the last 10 years to address our O-line adequately in the draft did not mean we were a defense first team. We invested several good draft picks on WR's, QB's that did not pan out, rather than picking O-Lineman. There is a long list of offensive players we drafted that have field and/or are no longer on team.
Defensewins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 07:23 PM   #99
internetcareer
Camp Scrub
 
internetcareer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alexandria
Posts: 89
Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

There is no way around it: Big Al is a troubled individual. He has anger and ego issues and only his immense talent has saved him He is on his own mission and all the skins can do is plug him into defense end and say "KILL"..."DESTROY". Its all he's good for.
internetcareer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 07:25 PM   #100
CRedskinsRule
Living Legend
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Age: 57
Posts: 21,430
Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Quote:
Originally Posted by internetcareer View Post
There is no way around it: Big Al is a troubled individual. He has anger and ego issues and only his immense talent has saved him He is on his own mission and all the skins can do is plug him into defense end and say "KILL"..."DESTROY". Its all he's good for.
I for one am ok with that.
CRedskinsRule is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 07:28 PM   #101
tryfuhl
Gamebreaker
 
tryfuhl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 41
Posts: 12,514
Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
I for one am ok with that.
Same here.. we're the Redskins.. warriors

not the Washington Good Samaritans

I'm not saying pick up baby killers but a guy who said he wants to actually earn his money and wants to play at his best position is hardly a concern for me. We bitched when Cooley was blocking way more than running routes despite needing his help, why can't we bitch when Al should be going after the passer instead of having a 3-way with 2 OL?
tryfuhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 08:38 PM   #102
Mechanix544
The Starter
 
Mechanix544's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Fort Bliss, TX
Posts: 2,277
Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12thMan View Post
This all means AH is surely to be traded!
hahahaha! I really hope not, but if he is, I hope we can get Gaither and a 1st out of it. That would be a trade I would make.

Or a 1st and 3rd.
Mechanix544 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 08:44 PM   #103
internetcareer
Camp Scrub
 
internetcareer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alexandria
Posts: 89
Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Quote:
Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan View Post
You must have dreamed up that idea. The biggest hole we have is Left Offensive Tackle. Okung is a consensus Top 5 Draft Pick who plays left tackle. Why wouldn't we want him to be there so we have a chance of filling that hole? Please don't tell me that some of the other OT's in the draft are just as good or almost just as good because they're not.

We can get another draft pick by trading JC or we can trade a 2011 pick for a pick this year if someone good falls in the draft but we must have a top notch LT from somewhere to get the production we need on offense.

If Okung is gone at #4, then I agree that trading down might be a good thing to do but if he's there I believe we need to take him.
yea, the most important person in the draft for us is OKUNG. But if he is not available then perhaps the prudent move is to just go ahead and take Trent Williams because tackle is a CRITICAL need. We cannot draft a project.

Although I suppose we could always trade for somebody's left tackle and a draft pick for our #4 pick if Bradford was available. I just don't know if Buffalo or Cleveland or Seattle have a left tackle that we might want.
internetcareer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 09:09 PM   #104
DIE-NASTY
Special Teams
 
DIE-NASTY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: OCEAN PINES, MD
Posts: 121
Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Quote:
Originally Posted by tryfuhl View Post
Same here.. we're the Redskins.. warriors

not the Washington Good Samaritans

I'm not saying pick up baby killers but a guy who said he wants to actually earn his money and wants to play at his best position is hardly a concern for me. We bitched when Cooley was blocking way more than running routes despite needing his help, why can't we bitch when Al should be going after the passer instead of having a 3-way with 2 OL?
The sad thing is AH could beat two OL with enough frequency to be a force in the running and passing game if he'd take his head out of ass.

On a side note, when did it become ok to tell your boss you're not going to do something or follow an assignment? I'd having him cleaning my toilets if I were ol' Danny Boy. I bet he'd be more than happy to play NT after a month or so of cleaning up after me.
DIE-NASTY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010, 09:36 PM   #105
CRedskinsRule
Living Legend
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Age: 57
Posts: 21,430
Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Quote:
Originally Posted by DIE-NASTY View Post
The sad thing is AH could beat two OL with enough frequency to be a force in the running and passing game if he'd take his head out of ass.

On a side note, when did it become ok to tell your boss you're not going to do something or follow an assignment? I'd having him cleaning my toilets if I were ol' Danny Boy. I bet he'd be more than happy to play NT after a month or so of cleaning up after me.
you do realize that these are voluntary and that if the Skins management team looked like they were forcing AH to be there, they could be fined or have draft picks taken away right? AH has said he's not going to miss any mandatory ones.
CRedskinsRule is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.
Page generated in 1.01332 seconds with 10 queries