Schefter: "Skins NOT shopping Big Al"

[BigHairedAristocrat]

According to another PFT article, Haynesworth is only owed 16MM with 9MM garaunteed over the next 3 years. That is a STEAL of a deal for a 4-3 team. My guess is that we are trying to get our trading partner and/or Haynesworth to pay us back some of that money as part of the trade. Essentially, we're giving him the Lavar treatment. I'm pretty sure that whatever Haynesworth had to pay back to us, his new team would pay him as part of his new deal.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

According to another PFT article, Haynesworth is only owed 16MM with 9MM garaunteed over the next 3 years. That is a STEAL of a deal for a 4-3 team. My guess is that we are trying to get our trading partner and/or Haynesworth to pay us back some of that money as part of the trade. Essentially, we're giving him the Lavar treatment. I'm pretty sure that whatever Haynesworth had to pay back to us, his new team would pay him as part of his new deal.

For his talent level, it is a steal but it seems to me that the biggest question mark on Godzilla is his work ethic and presence in the locker room. When he left the Titans there were already red flags and Washington trying to move him after one year doesn't help his cause. So now they want money back on top of draft picks? To me that adds a very intriguing "layer" to all of this. Because asking for money back is essentially just a move to save face. So what dollar amount makes it acceptable to the team? Next, what draft pick or picks is adequate compensation? Then, if you add in the fact that Detroit and Tampa Bay are potential suitors but trading Al to them might allow them to skip over Suh and McCoy and then take the guy we want (Okung for example) it gets even more interesting.

Moving Al is getting more complicated by the minute. The more complicated it is, the less likely it happens IMO.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

For his talent level, it is a steal but it seems to me that the biggest question mark on Godzilla is his work ethic and presence in the locker room. When he left the Titans there were already red flags and Washington trying to move him after one year doesn't help his cause. So now they want money back on top of draft picks? To me that adds a very intriguing "layer" to all of this. Because asking for money back is essentially just a move to save face. So what dollar amount makes it acceptable to the team? Next, what draft pick or picks is adequate compensation? Then, if you add in the fact that Detroit and Tampa Bay are potential suitors but trading Al to them might allow them to skip over Suh and McCoy and then take the guy we want (Okung for example) it gets even more interesting.

Moving Al is getting more complicated by the minute. The more complicated it is, the less likely it happens IMO.

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.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

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.

Is Al that big of a distraction to the team? They would have to despise him to go through with that because that is a lot of trouble to, most likely, downgrade at DT. It isn't a cost cutting move because the 4th pick is going to be making huge guaranteed money. To me, that would be a waste of our 4th pick because you have to commit that pick to get anywhere near the production that you are shipping out.

Granted, you will get some type of pick or two for the big guy but this is a lot of effort to take a step back.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

Is Al that big of a distraction to the team? They would have to despise him to go through with that because that is a lot of trouble to, most likely, downgrade at DT. It isn't a cost cutting move because the 4th pick is going to be making huge guaranteed money. To me, that would be a waste of our 4th pick because you have to commit that pick to get anywhere near the production that you are shipping out.

Granted, you will get some type of pick or two for the big guy but this is a lot of effort to take a step back.

I know! If they wanted to get rid of the #1 problem child it would be CP not AH.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

Is Al that big of a distraction to the team? They would have to despise him to go through with that because that is a lot of trouble to, most likely, downgrade at DT. It isn't a cost cutting move because the 4th pick is going to be making huge guaranteed money. To me, that would be a waste of our 4th pick because you have to commit that pick to get anywhere near the production that you are shipping out.

Granted, you will get some type of pick or two for the big guy but this is a lot of effort to take a step back.

Throughout this entire thread, i've made it clear that his being "a distraction" has little - if anything - to do with us wanting to move him. our desire to move him is atleast 99% about acquiring offensive talent.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

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.

I agree that we are fine with Okung or with out. We draft him or trade down and get another OL.
I disagree about getting rid of Haynesworth as a bonus. There will be a talent void in our D-line if Hayneswrth leaves and we do not properly replace him. Kemoeatu is questionable coming off a major injury. Our other DLineman are not difference makers. We will create a hole.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

I agree that we are fine with Okung or with out. We draft him or trade down and get another OL.
I disagree about getting rid of Haynesworth as a bonus. There will be a talent void in our D-line if Hayneswrth leaves and we do not properly replace him. Kemoeatu is questionable coming off a major injury. Our other DLineman are not difference makers. We will create a hole.

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.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

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.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

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.

[internetcareer]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

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.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

For his talent level, it is a steal but it seems to me that the biggest question mark on Godzilla is his work ethic and presence in the locker room. When he left the Titans there were already red flags and Washington trying to move him after one year doesn't help his cause. So now they want money back on top of draft picks? To me that adds a very intriguing "layer" to all of this. Because asking for money back is essentially just a move to save face. So what dollar amount makes it acceptable to the team? Next, what draft pick or picks is adequate compensation? Then, if you add in the fact that Detroit and Tampa Bay are potential suitors but trading Al to them might allow them to skip over Suh and McCoy and then take the guy we want (Okung for example) it gets even more interesting.

Moving Al is getting more complicated by the minute. The more complicated it is, the less likely it happens IMO.

Exactly. Still don't think Al's going anywhere. They'll expect at least two high picks and probably a player in return.

[Defensewins]

When the game in the trenches turns into a war, I want Haynesworth or someone of his size, skill and demeanor on both of our lines.
Giants game when Brandon Jacobs and T William Beatty abused Deagelo Hall, Haynesworth rightfully went to defend his outmatched teammate.
We need more guys like this on both of our lines.
YouTube - Giants fight

The refs blew the call on that one.

[tryfuhl]

"The source said Haynesworth is, and will continue to be, the Redskins' starting nose tackle."

Washington Redskins source: Albert Haynesworth is our starting defensive tackle - ESPN

Putting pressure on Big Al or being honest?

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

"The source said Haynesworth is, and will continue to be, the Redskins' starting nose tackle."



Washington Redskins source: Albert Haynesworth is our starting defensive tackle - ESPN

Putting pressure on Big Al or being honest?

So basically we picked up Kemoeatu for nothing. Hmm.