PDA

View Full Version : Redskins offered Haynesworth...


cmhargrove
04-05-2010, 09:52 AM
Source: Redskins offered Haynesworth to Eagles

By Jason La Canfora | NFL Network


The Redskins offered defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth in trade talks for Donovan McNabb, according to league sources.

Haynesworth, who clashed with coaches during his first season in Washington in 2009 and has not made a good first impression with new coach Mike Shanahan, is someone who could be had in a trade, and he was offered to the Eagles.

Other coaches said that they expect the Redskins to continue attempts to move Haynesworth, who is bucking the idea of playing nose tackle as Washington plays more 3-4 defense, according to sources. Haynesworth just received a $21 million bonus at the start of the month, and his salary would make dealing him very difficult.

The Eagles had no interest in trading for Haynesworth outright, according to a source, and thus the subject of how much of his salary and bonus payments the Redskins would be willing to absorb was never discussed. When the Redskins brought up Haynesworth they offered no financial stipulations, according to the source, but had the Eagles shown interest that matter may have come up.



It may be a little early here, but is this one of the worst FA contracts in history? Dear God, $21 mil. for a guy that is now out of his natural position and already at odds with his coaches...

JCMElway
04-05-2010, 09:56 AM
Gotta love the redskins......

Baba Booey
04-05-2010, 10:01 AM
Haiiiil to the dip-****s.

T/F Bronco
04-05-2010, 10:38 AM
This is what happens when owners run the team.

Garcia Bronco
04-05-2010, 10:51 AM
And this is why the Redskins will never be successful. Until Diaper Dan sells the team they'll generally suck.

Tombstone RJ
04-05-2010, 10:51 AM
Shanny is the idiot here. Seriously, think about it. Why force the 3-4 when the team is set up for the 4-3 and already has a good defense.

If I was Snyder this is where I tell Shanny "keep the 4-3 and make the best of it, you idgit."

Seriously, I'd tell Shanny to get a freaking clue.

ColoradoDarin
04-05-2010, 10:54 AM
Shanny is the idiot here. Seriously, think about it. Why force the 3-4 when the team is set up for the 4-3 and already has a good defense.

If I was Snyder this is where I tell Shanny "keep the 4-3 and make the best of it, you idgit."

Seriously, I'd tell Shanny to get a freaking clue.

This.

WolfpackGuy
04-05-2010, 10:54 AM
That's crazy.

I'd hate to see that cap hit.

oubronco
04-05-2010, 10:55 AM
Damn didn't they have a top 10 defense? Don't mess with what isn't broken

HooptyHoops
04-05-2010, 10:56 AM
I agree...Haynsworth is an absolute stud at tackle...why try to move him to nose(where he doesn't want to play)? It makes no sense and if you have one of the breast DT in the league, you don't move him out of position....that would be like the Vikings deciding to play a 3-4...absolute stupid!!

That One Guy
04-05-2010, 10:56 AM
Shanny is the idiot here. Seriously, think about it. Why force the 3-4 when the team is set up for the 4-3 and already has a good defense.

If I was Snyder this is where I tell Shanny "keep the 4-3 and make the best of it, you idgit."

Seriously, I'd tell Shanny to get a freaking clue.

I thought Shanny spent so long getting beat on by 3-4 teams that he resisted changing for principle. Now that he was free of it and got to start new without admitting a mistake, he wasn't passing that up for the world. The best option would've been a hybrid as the transition happens even if just to appease Haynesworth enough to shut up and try hard. He has no incentive to try at this point.

ColoradoDarin
04-05-2010, 10:58 AM
That's crazy.

I'd hate to see that cap hit.

No cap, hence no cap hit.

Just a nice sized hit to <strike>Dan Snyder's</strike> fan's wallet. Hey 'skins fans, enjoy your $50 10 oz beers.

misturanderson
04-05-2010, 11:26 AM
Why wouldn't the Eagle's want the best DT in the league instead of a 2nd round pick? You wouldn't have to worry about the guaranteed money that he's been paid already.

What 4-3 team wouldn't jump at the chance for Haynesworth? Especially if it was for a player you were trying to ship out anyway. I don't get it. I guess maybe they were asking for some additional compensation.

Traveler
04-05-2010, 11:47 AM
Laron Landry's name also supposedly was mentioned per KFFL.com

dbfan21
04-05-2010, 11:52 AM
Shanny is the idiot here. Seriously, think about it. Why force the 3-4 when the team is set up for the 4-3 and already has a good defense.

If I was Snyder this is where I tell Shanny "keep the 4-3 and make the best of it, you idgit."

Seriously, I'd tell Shanny to get a freaking clue.

Exactly. I was telling the exact same thing to my friend today. It makes no sense to switch formations with a solid squad intact.

maher_tyler
04-05-2010, 11:53 AM
Laron Landry's name also supposedly was mentioned per KFFL.com

If true..i guess Shanny didn't learn you also need a defense to win games!! Glad he's not here anymore!!

Edit: Is Slowick there D coordinator??

DBroncos4life
04-05-2010, 11:55 AM
If true..i guess Shanny didn't learn you also need a defense to win games!! Glad he's not here anymore!!

Edit: Is Slowick there D coordinator??

No he works with the Safeties.

TheReverend
04-05-2010, 01:01 PM
They put together a pretty stellar defensive staff. I'd trust their judgment until the product is displayed.

theAPAOps5
04-05-2010, 01:04 PM
Shanny is the idiot here. Seriously, think about it. Why force the 3-4 when the team is set up for the 4-3 and already has a good defense.

If I was Snyder this is where I tell Shanny "keep the 4-3 and make the best of it, you idgit."

Seriously, I'd tell Shanny to get a freaking clue.

Problem with that is if Snyder even remotely gave Shanny the impression he would dictate what he does with the team Shanny would be a coach elsewhere.

Its Shanny's show now and Snyder just has the pocket book.

Rohirrim
04-05-2010, 01:05 PM
Shanny is the idiot here. Seriously, think about it. Why force the 3-4 when the team is set up for the 4-3 and already has a good defense.

If I was Snyder this is where I tell Shanny "keep the 4-3 and make the best of it, you idgit."

Seriously, I'd tell Shanny to get a freaking clue.

But you are forgetting the key element here: Shanny is smarter than everybody else. Didn't you learn that when he was here?

elsid13
04-05-2010, 01:07 PM
If true..i guess Shanny didn't learn you also need a defense to win games!! Glad he's not here anymore!!

Edit: Is Slowick there D coordinator??

Landry isn't very good, in fact he kinda of a bust.

gyldenlove
04-05-2010, 01:09 PM
Damn didn't they have a top 10 defense? Don't mess with what isn't broken

They were barely top 20 despite games against Detroit, St Louis, Tampa Bay, Kansas City, Carolina while they sucked and Oakland.

baja
04-05-2010, 01:40 PM
Problem with that is if Snyder even remotely gave Shanny the impression he would dictate what he does with the team Shanny would be a coach elsewhere.

Its Shanny's show now and Snyder just has the pocket book.

I think time will show that Allan has alot of GM power. I also think Shanny will work with him well.

extralife
04-05-2010, 01:44 PM
The best part of this thread is the people expounding a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy while also supporting our coach completely changing our blocking schemes for no reason without bringing anyone in to run them.

baja
04-05-2010, 01:50 PM
The best part of this thread is the people expounding a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy while also supporting our coach completely changing our blocking schemes for no reason without bringing anyone in to run them.

If you will read this thread;

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=90402


you will see almost everyone that made a list mentioned the switch to ZBS without proper players to play the power scheme as a top 3 negative.

chex
04-05-2010, 01:50 PM
They were barely top 20 despite games against Detroit, St Louis, Tampa Bay, Kansas City, Carolina while they sucked and Oakland.

Washington? According to NFL.com, they were 10th in total yards per game.

bowtown
04-05-2010, 01:50 PM
The best part of this thread is the people expounding a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy while also supporting our coach completely changing our blocking schemes for no reason without bringing anyone in to run them.

Really, you think there is no reason to change our blocking scheme?

Paladin
04-05-2010, 01:51 PM
Big difference between D and O, little guy.....

chex
04-05-2010, 01:53 PM
The best part of this thread is the people expounding a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy while also supporting our coach completely changing our blocking schemes for no reason without bringing anyone in to run them.

Actually, I thought the best part was the complete and utter silence from all the critics who slammed our coach last year for pretty much doing the same thing Shanahan is doing now. But that's just me.

theAPAOps5
04-05-2010, 03:42 PM
The best part of this thread is the people expounding a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy while also supporting our coach completely changing our blocking schemes for no reason without bringing anyone in to run them.

Can you tell me the last team to win a Superbowl running a zone blocking scheme? It will be interesting to see your answer.

DBroncos4life
04-05-2010, 04:11 PM
Can you tell me the last team to win a Superbowl running a zone blocking scheme? It will be interesting to see your answer.

Do you have a list of the schemes that teams run every year and what they ran in past years?

theAPAOps5
04-05-2010, 04:39 PM
Do you have a list of the schemes that teams run every year and what they ran in past years?

Its much simpler than that. The last team to run a legit zone blocking scheme that won a SB was the Denver Broncos.

Other teams may have used portions of it in their scheme but no other team since the Broncos who have run a ZBS as their primary has won the SB.

Now I am not saying the ZBS is flawed but its also not accurate to say the line under McD wasn't flawed. For what he wants and what the majority of the NFL uses our OL isn't suited for that. So he did need to fix it. Just like Shanny needs to fix a defense that greatly underachieved with the money and talent they had on that side of the ball in Washington.

gyldenlove
04-05-2010, 05:43 PM
Washington? According to NFL.com, they were 10th in total yards per game.

According to a lot of people it is points that count and they were 18th in that.

extralife
04-05-2010, 06:22 PM
Can you tell me the last team to win a Superbowl running a zone blocking scheme? It will be interesting to see your answer.

I'm sort of wondering why you are retarded.

Bigdawg26
04-05-2010, 08:14 PM
I think it's kinda weird that when Shanny finally gets a dominate DT he wants to trade him. If Haynesworth would have been in Denver when Shanny was here then he would still be in Denver!

~Crash~
04-05-2010, 10:46 PM
I'm sort of wondering why you are retarded.

yep Indy for one...

BroncoInferno
04-05-2010, 10:51 PM
Good lord! What the hell does Shanny have against having a quality DL on his roster? It's like he, for some irrational reason, wants to prove he can win a championship without a single decent defensive lineman. This makes no sense.

BroncoInferno
04-05-2010, 10:56 PM
yep Indy for one...

Indy, like most teams, runs a portion of the ZBS in their scheme, but it isn't predominant.

The problem with running the ZBS as your bread and butter, as we have seen in the last decade, in that it works fabulously between the 20s; but in short yardage and red zone situations, it tended to get stuffed because the running plays took too long to develop and the lineman didn't have the strength to knock the other guy off the ball.

extralife
04-05-2010, 11:25 PM
Luckily we were excellent on 3rd and 1 last year with our power scheme.

BroncoInferno
04-06-2010, 12:12 AM
Luckily we were excellent on 3rd and 1 last year with our power scheme.

Gee, I guess one season proves all we ever need to know! Uhh

Jesus, some of you are so pitifully ignorant...

extralife
04-06-2010, 01:43 AM
well it certainly counts for more than imaginary production does. zone blocking was extremely successful for us for fifteen years, and the people that installed it here have had tremendous success elsewhere as well. only Pittsburgh has proven successful over a long period of time with a power scheme of late, and even they have been wildly inconsistent in the running game over the years, contrary to popular opinion.

chex
04-06-2010, 05:44 AM
According to a lot of people it is points that count and they were 18th in that.

Oh, ok, thanks.

Wait a minute, I thought the gold standard in rankings was YPG? All I've heard the past couple of years is how we were a "top 2" offense in 2008 due to being 2nd in yardage, but when it was pointed out that we were 16th in PPG, people were told that it's YPG that counts, not PPG, since obviously, that hinders any convenient arguments. So now I hear Washington didn't really have a top 10 defense presented to their new coach, it's really 18th?

TotallyScrewed
04-06-2010, 06:38 AM
Indy, like most teams, runs a portion of the ZBS in their scheme, but it isn't predominant.

The problem with running the ZBS as your bread and butter, as we have seen in the last decade, in that it works fabulously between the 20s; but in short yardage and red zone situations, it tended to get stuffed because the running plays took too long to develop and the lineman didn't have the strength to knock the other guy off the ball.

Sheesh...And I thought it was because Denver was incredible predictable. My bad.

Mike Anderson didn't play too badly (ORY) in 2000. And played well for several years afterwords albeit injuries hurt him.

And Clinton Portis did well.

But yeah, ZBS, sucked pretty much with Ron Dayne, Reuben Droughns, G. Hearst, Q. Griffin, Tatum Bell, Travis Henry, Ryan Torain, Michael Pittman, Peyton Hillis and Spenser Larson. All of whom were stars if Denver would have played the power game.

Royalfan19
04-06-2010, 06:42 AM
Indy depends on zone plays and play fakes off those zone plays as much as any offense in the league. What planet are some of you guys on?

theAPAOps5
04-06-2010, 07:49 AM
yep Indy for one...

You crack me up. Indy didn't run a predominant ZBS scheme. They used it as do most teams. My point is the last team that predominantly ran the ZBS to win a SB was Denver.

You can tell extralife has no argument or counter argument because his only response is you are retarded.

At least you offered an opinion but you helped make my point. Thanks!

theAPAOps5
04-06-2010, 07:51 AM
And to clarify my point. I don't think ZBS is a broken scheme. But most teams don't utilize it as their main scheme. Including our new coach McD. So to him its broken because he wants a more traditional power scheme.

If Mike Shanahan were still the coach the line wouldn't be flawed save for replacing some aging parts.

cmhargrove
04-06-2010, 07:56 AM
I think it's kinda weird that when Shanny finally gets a dominate DT he wants to trade him. If Haynesworth would have been in Denver when Shanny was here then he would still be in Denver!

I think the point is, Haynesworth was hardly dominant in 2009. He was good, but not 21 million dollar good. No where close...

cmhargrove
04-06-2010, 08:01 AM
Sheesh...And I thought it was because Denver was incredible predictable. My bad.

Mike Anderson didn't play too badly (ORY) in 2000. And played well for several years afterwords albeit injuries hurt him.

And Clinton Portis did well.

But yeah, ZBS, sucked pretty much with Ron Dayne, Reuben Droughns, G. Hearst, Q. Griffin, Tatum Bell, Travis Henry, Ryan Torain, Michael Pittman, Peyton Hillis and Spenser Larson. All of whom were stars if Denver would have played the power game.

Did you really pull the Ryan Torain card?
69 yards and 1 touchdown Torain? :wiggle:

It's my opinion that talent is the issue. ZBS allowed us to maximize performance from undersized (possibly under-talented) linemen. Keep spending high draft picks on the O-line and you can run whatever run scheme you wish.

The difference between our late 90's ZBS and the ZBS of the last couple years - talent.

Just my opinion.

bowtown
04-06-2010, 08:30 AM
You crack me up. Indy didn't run a predominant ZBS scheme. They used it as do most teams. My point is the last team that predominantly ran the ZBS to win a SB was Denver.

You can tell extralife has no argument or counter argument because his only response is you are retarded.

At least you offered an opinion but you helped make my point. Thanks!

Indy does actually rely upon it more than most teams do, the only problem with that argument is that Indy wins in spite of their running game, not because of it. Indy's actual scheme is called the PMS (Peyton Manning Scheme).

baja
04-06-2010, 08:36 AM
Indy does actually rely upon it more than most teams do, the only problem with that argument is that Indy wins in spite of their running game, not because of it. <b>Indy's actual scheme is called the PMS (Peyton Manning Scheme).

Boy do those initials fit perfectly for Manning.

Rabb
04-06-2010, 08:42 AM
ZBS left Denver when Gibbs did...whether we ran it or not

why people fear change so much is amazing to me, if the power scheme turns out to be half as effective as the switch to 3-4, yes please

ColoradoDarin
04-06-2010, 08:47 AM
ZBS left Denver when Gibbs did...whether we ran it or not

why people fear change so much is amazing to me, if the power scheme turns out to be half as effective as the switch to 3-4, yes please

Yup, our running game was never as effective after Gibbs left, we also didn't have as much talent on the line either (thanks still to Shanny for getting Clady, Harris & Kuper recently).

theAPAOps5
04-06-2010, 08:55 AM
Indy does actually rely upon it more than most teams do, the only problem with that argument is that Indy wins in spite of their running game, not because of it. Indy's actual scheme is called the PMS (Peyton Manning Scheme).

Fair enough and I agree with the above the PMS scheme is perfect for Peyton more so just because I hate how good he is!

~Crash~
04-06-2010, 09:41 AM
Indy, like most teams, runs a portion of the ZBS in their scheme, but it isn't predominant.

The problem with running the ZBS as your bread and butter, as we have seen in the last decade, in that it works fabulously between the 20s; but in short yardage and red zone situations, it tended to get stuffed because the running plays took too long to develop and the lineman didn't have the strength to knock the other guy off the ball.

No the problem with running Zone is simple after we won two SB's with it the NFL banned us to winning anymore SB's.

~Crash~
04-06-2010, 09:45 AM
also we never adjusted with the weights averages after we won those Sb's . we needed to get bigger simple as that . I would say DL on average are 25 to 30 pounds heavier since 1999 .

~Crash~
04-06-2010, 09:47 AM
Hamilton was way light . I am so impressed with him and what he did as a Bronco.

~Crash~
04-06-2010, 09:49 AM
ZBS left Denver when Gibbs did...whether we ran it or not

why people fear change so much is amazing to me, if the power scheme turns out to be half as effective as the switch to 3-4, yes please

So who are those people . I don't see many wanting a team that gets threw around like rag dolls

Doggcow
04-06-2010, 09:51 AM
No the problem with running Zone is simple after we won two SB's with it the NFL banned us to winning anymore SB's.

rofl

cmhargrove
04-06-2010, 09:56 AM
Hamilton was way light . I am so impressed with him and what he did as a Bronco.

Damn right. Hamilton was a warrior, and the kind of person you want on your team. Hamilton was a great Bronco.

Rabb
04-06-2010, 09:59 AM
So who are those people . I don't see many wanting a team that gets threw around like rag dolls

everyone bitching last year about the lack of ZBS

bronco militia
04-06-2010, 10:28 AM
Damn right. Hamilton was a warrior, and the kind of person you want on your team. Hamilton was a great Bronco.

I thought he sucked....

Rabb
04-06-2010, 11:16 AM
I thought he sucked....

looking at last year, yes...otherwise he was good

cmhargrove
04-06-2010, 11:16 AM
I thought he sucked....

Go back and check his career. He did fade his last year and a half, but other than that, was a very solid player (and team mate) for his entire career.

The last thing you could say is that Hamilton sucked, he was just a little too light to challenge the growing size of interior linemen in the NFL. But technically, he was a fighter, knew his assignments, and was constantly in position to succeed.

Undersized, yes. "Sucked," no.

baja
04-06-2010, 11:19 AM
BM just likes to type the word "Suck" - don't know why but he does. ;D

misturanderson
04-06-2010, 07:35 PM
Also, Haynesworth already received his 21 million dollar bonus and his signing bonus, so why wouldn't anyone want him? His salary can't be that large after those bonuses are paid out. Nothing I have found really makes sense in laying out the terms of his contract, but it was a 7 year $100 million contract that he has so far receieved at least $62 million of.

He was the best defensive player in the league 2 years ago and would fit in perfectly in the eagles' attacking style of defense, so why wouldn't they want him?

DBroncos4life
04-06-2010, 07:42 PM
Even if Indy runs the ZBS, they didn't WIN THE SUPERBOWL, which was the point made (though their running game had nothing to do with their loss).

Also, Haynesworth already received his 21 million dollar bonus and his signing bonus, so why wouldn't anyone want him? His salary can't be that large after those bonuses are paid out. Nothing I have found really makes sense in laying out the terms of his contract, but it was a 7 year $100 million contract that he has so far receieved at least $62 million of.

He was the best defensive player in the league 2 years ago and would fit in perfectly in the eagles' attacking style of defense, so why wouldn't they want him?

Really who Super Bowl Super Bowl XLI then?

misturanderson
04-06-2010, 07:55 PM
Really who Super Bowl Super Bowl XLI then?

Fair enough, that was dumb.

TotallyScrewed
04-08-2010, 06:47 PM
Did you really pull the Ryan Torain card?
69 yards and 1 touchdown Torain? :wiggle:

It's my opinion that talent is the issue. ZBS allowed us to maximize performance from undersized (possibly under-talented) linemen. Keep spending high draft picks on the O-line and you can run whatever run scheme you wish.

The difference between our late 90's ZBS and the ZBS of the last couple years - talent.

Just my opinion.

I was being sarcastic.

We totally agree.