Haynesworth trade possibly in the works

of course its different. before, we would have had to trade him at a discount, since the team receiving him would have had to pay him an absurd amount of money. now, we can trade him for more, since teams will not have to pay him the 21MM and he'll be extremely affordable for the next 3 years. A cheap team like Tampa or Detroit will most certainly be more interested in him now. Regardless, none of that changes the fact that Shanahan doesnt really want him on the team. If he did, he never would have been shopped in the first place. (the financial side of things works both ways. its a small part of the equation).

At this point, I am not sure how we disagree. Before bonus, willing to trade at a discount. After bonus, no discount. Both before and after bonus, Shanahan not a big fan of AH and is willing to get rid of him for the right price. Also, before and after bonus, not gonna just give one of the most, if not the most, talented DL player in the league away.

At this point, I am not sure how we disagree. Before bonus, willing to trade at a discount. After bonus, no discount. Both before and after bonus, Shanahan not a big fan of AH and is willing to get rid of him for the right price. Also, before and after bonus, not gonna just give one of the most, if not the most, talented DL player in the league away.

well then i dont know where we truly disagree unless its just in terms of what it'll actually take for us to trade haynesworth. but i'd be shocked if he's on the roster 10 days from now. shanahan wants him gone. ultimately, i'd say if can we get a pick at the top of the 2nd round in 2010 or a 1st rounder in 2011, he's gone.

Whoa, so let me get this straight. Our coaching staff should stay with the 4-3 to accommodate one guy who's getting attitudinal by the minute? If he can't get on board at any costs --literally and figuratively-- I don't want him on this team. I really don't see what's so hard to see about that. Shanny doesn't like the guy and I'm sure, at this point, the feeling is mutual. If the right deal comes along, let's just cut ties and keep it moving.

Over the past several seasons, the Redskins have had stellar defenses with less talent playing at the DT position. So I'm not buying the hype we should shuffle the deck to keep one guy happy. If Haynesworth wants to be happy, ship his tired ass back to Tennessee. Seriously. I'm really getting sick of this whole story.

Shanny and Bruce seem to already be losing control of the situation. If we can believe earlier reports Albert went into the season (off-season) committing himself to be at the top of his game. I would argue two points: 1) AH at the top of his game is the most dominant defensive player in football 2) that fact should be enough reason to build the effing defense around him i.e. keep the 4-3 and improve on what we've got.

Instead Shanny/Haslett/Allen have decided to force a scheme for which we don't even have the personnel. And because they effed up the trade w/ the Eagles it seems inevitable we'll lose our best player on the roster.

What is really frustrating about this is the simple fact we're not likely to stick w/ whatever Shanny and Haslett think they're doing anyway. Haslett is a mediocre to sub-par coach. His units have never impressed. And Shanny has a penchant for kicking DCs to the curb even when they perform well (some of his DCs in Denver produced top 10 defenses but still got axed). That's pure ego IMO. So Haslett is likely gone in a year and we start all over again defensively. If we trade Haynesworth for peanuts after giving him $30M, then revert back to the 4-3 after a year of spotty results in the 3-4, then Shanahan should have lots of explaining to do.

Haynesworth is what he is - a dominant player when given the freedom to play the way he wants to, but a pain in the ass if you ask him to do anything outside his comfort zone.

If we trade Haynesworth for peanuts after giving him $30M, then revert back to the 4-3 after a year of spotty results in the 3-4, then Shanahan should have lots of explaining to do.

Haynesworth is what he is - a dominant player when given the freedom to play the way he wants to, but a pain in the ass if you ask him to do anything outside his comfort zone.

I agree.
I would rather have a roster full of talented players that make the playoffs more times than not, make an occasional SB and that do not attend any of the off season voluntary programs than a bunch boyscout type players that get pushed around.
Dave Butz and John Riggins did their own thing, never attended any of the off season programs and they were referred to back them as players that played to the beat of a diffrent drum. Nobody screamed about it because it was ok back then.
Now we got a bunch of whiney coaches and fans that bitch about people that are different.
I am most amazed at some of the misquoted stuff that Haynesworth supposedly said.

Trading to the Eagles would have been crazy. Trading him if Shanny wants to is cool, but not for a QB, and not when we would have to face him twice a year. He would have killed McNabb, literally.

I hope we don't trade him this season.

Amen to that.

If we trade Haynesworth for peanuts after giving him $30M, then revert back to the 4-3 after a year of spotty results in the 3-4, then Shanahan should have lots of explaining to do.

Haynesworth is what he is - a dominant player when given the freedom to play the way he wants to, but a pain in the ass if you ask him to do anything outside his comfort zone.

Soup, this doesn't make sense. Shanny should explain what and to whom? He was bought here to change the culture and assemble a winning organization. If Haynesworth ain't down with that, then he's the one that should be explaining, not the head coach.

As far as Haynesworth being dominant, well, I guess this is where I part ways with most of those who post here. Haynesworth wasn't on the field enough, in my opinion, to be a truly dominant player. I would say he was definitely solid most of the last year and showed flashes here and there, but dominance and consistency go hand in hand in my book.

Shanahan isn't the problem, but it's starting to look like he inherited one.

If we trade Haynesworth for peanuts after giving him $30M, then revert back to the 4-3 after a year of spotty results in the 3-4, then Shanahan should have lots of explaining to do.

Haynesworth is what he is - a dominant player when given the freedom to play the way he wants to, but a pain in the ass if you ask him to do anything outside his comfort zone.

Haynesworth likely would be released anyway in 3 more years so its not like we ever viewed him as an integral part of the long-term success of the team. all that being said, i also question the move to the 3-4 to begin with and think this team would be much better off sticking with the 4-3, playing orakpo at DE, and keeping haynesworth. moving to the 3-4 in 2010 strikes me as a stupid move all around, given all the other needs we have on the team. but if we're going to move to a 3-4, i'd rather go ahead and move haynesworth too. i certainly think we could get multiple, less talented players and/or picks out of it.

Haynesworth likely would be released anyway in 3 more years so its not like we ever viewed him as an integral part of the long-term success of the team. all that being said, i also question the move to the 3-4 to begin with and think this team would be much better off sticking with the 4-3, playing orakpo at DE, and keeping haynesworth. moving to the 3-4 in 2010 strikes me as a stupid move all around, given all the other needs we have on the team. but if we're going to move to a 3-4, i'd rather go ahead and move haynesworth too. i certainly think we could get multiple, less talented players and/or picks out of it.

I agree.
This forced move to a 3-4 when our defensive roster is built for a 4-3. We do not have nearly enough quality LB's to play it for a whole season.
I am also not sold on this D-Coordinator. Has he ever had great success anywhere? I am asking because I do not know.