Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

SBXVII · 04-07-2010, 11:45 AM

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.

SirClintonPortis · 04-07-2010, 12:07 PM

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.

SBXVII · 04-07-2010, 12:11 PM

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.

celts32 · 04-07-2010, 12:11 PM

I think trading AH is an opportunity for the Redskins to finally use their financial resources to good use. I know 20 mil is a lot of money to eat but with that money paid he becomes a very marketable player. The Redskins have a draft pick shortage and could basically purchase a draft pick or two by trading big Al. I know he can be dominant at times when he wants to be but does anyone actually believe he is going to be here long term with Shanny and Allen anyway? It's pretty clear to me that they will eventually tire of him and end up cutting him for nothing in a year or 2 so why not get value for him now.

SBXVII · 04-07-2010, 12:15 PM

In regards to the info being put out to media sources.... I could have sworn M.Shanahan mentioned the JC was the QB of the Skins when asked about JC with in the month or two of taking over the team. I could be wrong but I could have sworn. In any event JC is not going to be the QB of the Skins. Unless of course he's the #2 or #3 if he can't get himself traded.

MTK · 04-07-2010, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SBXVII

In regards to the info being put out to media sources.... I could have sworn M.Shanahan mentioned the JC was the QB of the Skins when asked about JC with in the month or two of taking over the team. I could be wrong but I could have sworn. In any event JC is not going to be the QB of the Skins. Unless of course he's the #2 or #3 if he can't get himself traded.

Not sure what he said exactly but I do know he never said JC was his starter.

Pocket$ $traight · 04-07-2010, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Not sure what he said exactly but I do know he never said JC was his starter.

Hasn't "open competition" been the buzzwords since the Mastermind arrived?

SBXVII · 04-07-2010, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Not sure what he said exactly but I do know he never said JC was his starter.

I'll agree with you. I think it's a play on words. In other words although Schefter is reporting the Skins are not shopping AH, the play on words is they have not come out and said AH is not for sale or trade. Which means like someone else said if another team comes along with a decent offer he might be on the table. But the Skins are not calling other teams saying "hey what would you give us for him."

SmootSmack · 04-07-2010, 12:33 PM

Cerrato did lie, no question about that. I don't recall the Eagle saying they wouldn't trade McNabb within the division. Parcells said in March that there were no plans to trade Taylor, which was probably true at the time.

There's also a little something called "off the record" as in "on the record" "We don't want to trade McNabb within the division" (as an example) but "off the record" "We're having serious discussions with the Redskins"

The relationship between teams and the media is an admittedly complicated one. And the same media entity can have multiple sources within the same team making it even more complicated

Also, John Clayton did not say "actively shopping" he said "willing to part". And Schefter never said they aren't "willing to part" with Haynesworth. Like I said, they'll listen to offers for Haynesworth (more so than they would for say Devin Thomas) but they're not shopping him around.

BigHairedAristocrat · 04-07-2010, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Cerrato did lie, no question about that. I don't recall the Eagle saying they wouldn't trade McNabb within the division. Parcells said in March that there were no plans to trade Taylor, which was probably true at the time.

There's also a little something called "off the record" as in "on the record" "We don't want to trade McNabb within the division" (as an example) but "off the record" "We're having serious discussions with the Redskins"

The relationship between teams and the media is an admittedly complicated one. And the same media entity can have multiple sources within the same team making it even more complicated

Also, John Clayton did not say "actively shopping" he said "willing to part". And Schefter never said they aren't "willing to part" with Haynesworth. Like I said, they'll listen to offers for Haynesworth (more so than they would for say Devin Thomas) but they're not shopping him around.

As a practical matter, I don't see the difference. Whether you openly admit to calling teams and trying to see if theyre interested in a player or announcing to the whole world that you are willing to part with an elite player, the end result is the same - you really, really want to trade the player. This is exactly what the Eagles did with McNabb and he was traded in a about a week. By the sounds of it, there is definitely a market for Haynesworth and we are discussing trade scenarios with other teams. Who technically innitiated the contact is completely irrelevant. The only question is whether or not we receive an offer that is good enough to pull the trigger.

My guess would be that we've already got something in place that we want to execute and all we need to do is get Haynesworth to agree to some sort of financial concession.

CRedskinsRule · 04-07-2010, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Cerrato did lie, no question about that. I don't recall the Eagle saying they wouldn't trade McNabb within the division. Parcells said in March that there were no plans to trade Taylor, which was probably true at the time.

There's also a little something called "off the record" as in "on the record" "We don't want to trade McNabb within the division" (as an example) but "off the record" "We're having serious discussions with the Redskins"

The relationship between teams and the media is an admittedly complicated one. And the same media entity can have multiple sources within the same team making it even more complicated

Also, John Clayton did not say "actively shopping" he said "willing to part". And Schefter never said they aren't "willing to part" with Haynesworth. Like I said, they'll listen to offers for Haynesworth (more so than they would for say Devin Thomas) but they're not shopping him around.

GTripp is crying softly

Pocket$ $traight · 04-07-2010, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

GTripp is crying softly

I would like to hear GTripp's response to Bosworth's column.

washingtonpost.com

Boz is a heavyweight when it comes to sports related statistical analysis.

I guess Boz is as misguided as most of us on the Warpath...

BigHairedAristocrat · 04-07-2010, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

I would like to hear GTripp's response to Bosworth's column.

washingtonpost.com

Boz is a heavyweight when it comes to sports related statistical analysis.

I guess Boz is as misguided as most of us on the Warpath...

I must not have the context to understand your statement. could you expalin?

Pocket$ $traight · 04-07-2010, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I must not have the context to understand your statement. could you expalin?

CRedskins posted that GTripp was crying somewhere softly. In an off topic thought about GTripp's anti-McNabb position I was saying that I wonder what he would say about Boz's recent article.

Boz is a numbers cruncher like GTripp as well.

SBXVII · 04-07-2010, 01:02 PM

This speaks volumes. Although not a great source they sum it up well...

Redskins, Haynesworth are suddenly playing chicken | ProFootballTalk.com

04-07-2010, 11:45 AM	#1
SBXVII Franchise Player 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.

04-07-2010, 12:11 PM	#4
celts32 Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Hackettstown NJ Age: 54 Posts: 2,665	Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al" I think trading AH is an opportunity for the Redskins to finally use their financial resources to good use. I know 20 mil is a lot of money to eat but with that money paid he becomes a very marketable player. The Redskins have a draft pick shortage and could basically purchase a draft pick or two by trading big Al. I know he can be dominant at times when he wants to be but does anyone actually believe he is going to be here long term with Shanny and Allen anyway? It's pretty clear to me that they will eventually tire of him and end up cutting him for nothing in a year or 2 so why not get value for him now. __________________ Section 116 Row 19 “Goal line, goal line. I-left, tight wing, 70 chip on white.” www.facebook.com/HackettstownBeerClub

04-07-2010, 12:15 PM	#5
SBXVII Franchise Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Virginia Posts: 7,766	Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al" In regards to the info being put out to media sources.... I could have sworn M.Shanahan mentioned the JC was the QB of the Skins when asked about JC with in the month or two of taking over the team. I could be wrong but I could have sworn. In any event JC is not going to be the QB of the Skins. Unless of course he's the #2 or #3 if he can't get himself traded.

04-07-2010, 12:33 PM	#9
SmootSmack Uncle Phil Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 45,256	Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al" Cerrato did lie, no question about that. I don't recall the Eagle saying they wouldn't trade McNabb within the division. Parcells said in March that there were no plans to trade Taylor, which was probably true at the time. There's also a little something called "off the record" as in "on the record" "We don't want to trade McNabb within the division" (as an example) but "off the record" "We're having serious discussions with the Redskins" The relationship between teams and the media is an admittedly complicated one. And the same media entity can have multiple sources within the same team making it even more complicated Also, John Clayton did not say "actively shopping" he said "willing to part". And Schefter never said they aren't "willing to part" with Haynesworth. Like I said, they'll listen to offers for Haynesworth (more so than they would for say Devin Thomas) but they're not shopping him around. __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

04-07-2010, 01:02 PM	#15
SBXVII Franchise Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Virginia Posts: 7,766	Re: Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al" This speaks volumes. Although not a great source they sum it up well... Redskins, Haynesworth are suddenly playing chicken \| ProFootballTalk.com

04-07-2010, 12:07 PM	#2
SirClintonPortis Pro Bowl Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 6,052	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. __________________ Analysis using datasets (aka stats) is an attempt at reverse-engineering a player's "goodness". Virtuosity remembered, douchebaggery forgotten. The ideal character profile shoved down modern Western men and women's throats is Don Juan.

Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

Locker Room Main Forum