Donovan McNabb a REDSKIN!!!

roybus14 · Post by **roybus14** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 8:25 am

Here comes the drama with Albert because they tried to trade him.... Wahhhhhhh!!!!!!

langleyparkjoe · Post by **langleyparkjoe** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 8:29 am

I had to really think about what I was going to say about this...

McNabb still has it, he put up big numbers last year. *check*

McNabb/Parker/Larry/CP/Santana/Cooley *check*

Forever the dreamer I am, I have been throwing the following around all night... McNabb gets us to the superbowl and gives the finger to the smeagels. We win the superbowl in dallas stadium and WE ALL give the finger to dallas.

Now can we stop talking about drafting a QB and please pickup Okung and whoever else????

Thanks smeagels for doing the unthinkable, I hope Kolb doesn't work out for ya.

fleetus · Post by **fleetus** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 8:30 am

Why would the Eagles trade their top QB to a division rival?

three reasons -

1) as mentioned previously, they believe he has nothing left, so the joke is on the Skins. (i you watched Mcnabb last season, this is hard to believe because he was good)

2) the eagles best trade partner was the Rams, but if the Rams trade for McNabb, they don't want to use the #1 pick on another QB. (Bradford) The Skins do want Bradford, but the price from #4 up to #1 is too steep. So they trade Mcnabb and the #4 to STL for their #1, 2nd rounder and maybe more. This gives STL and Washington the QB they want. STL still gets the #4 to use on a DT or LT. The Skins also add more picks to improve depth.

3) and most likely reason, Donovan only has 1 yr left on his contract. So teams like STL and Oak probably spoke with McNabb's agent and found McNabb likely would NOT agree to a contract extension with them. Why? because it would be better for him to simply wait one year and enter free agency where he can pick any team. The Skins, with owner Snyder and coach Shanahan is the only quality franchise willing to offer Mcnabb a new home and get him to sign a contract extension.

welcome Donovan. If we win a Super Bowl with McNabb at QB, his years at Philly will be secondary. I am a "build through the draft" guy and I don't think there is anything we could have done with these two picks to put us in a better position to win over the next three years. Good move.

cleg · Post by **cleg** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 8:35 am

As a DC transplant in Philly this is great. I probably know more about why the Eagle fans wanted him gone but I believe more of the failiings had to do with Reid's playcalling than D.M. play. Welcome to Washington.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 8:37 am

Jake wrote:
Report: 'Skins offered Eagles Haynesworth

A lot to get to, but I wanted to get this post up quickly.

Adam Caplan of Scout.com just unloaded an interesting nugget during a TV appearance on CSN.

Per Caplan, the Redskins offered defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth to the Eagles as part of the Donovan McNabb deal, but the Birds didn't want him.

"The Redskins actually offered - I'm told by two league sources - Albert Haynesworth, the oustanding defensive tackle, but Albert Haynesworth has an enormous contract," Caplan said, adding that Haynesworth was a pain to the Redskins' previous coaching staff.

Haynesworth, who will turn 29 in June, signed a $100M contract last offseason with the Redskins, which included $41M in guaranteed money. He received - get this - a $21M roster bonus on April 1. His 2010 and 2011 salaries of $3.6M and $5.4M are guaranteed, according to contract details.

The Eagles have two good defensive tackles in Mike Patterson and Brodrick Bunkley, but neither guy was on the field on third downs last season, and neither has shown the ability to pressure the quarterback up the middle.

Haynesworth had a disappointing debut season with the Redskins, but the thought of him teaming up with Trent Cole deserves at least a moment of thought amid all the other things that are being discussed this evening.

Much more to come.

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/Rep ... worth.html

God, I'm glad we didn't do that, or rather, that the Smegols didn't accept. And I don't agree at all that AH's debut here was a disappointment. We actually had a pass rush last season, and that's why we got him. As for this deal, I like it, especially if we can recoup our #2 in a trade for Campbell. I can't believe the Smegols would let him go to a division opponent. That's just stupid. But Smegol fans have had it in for him since they drafted him instead of Ricky Williams. Man, Ricky Williams has paid off for the Skins in spades!

SKINFAN · Post by **SKINFAN** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 8:39 am

I'm still shell shocked, I saw this on google last night and for a a sec I thought Vinny was back tugging strings at the 'park... McNads if anything will have a chip on his shoulder when we play the birds 2wice next year. He is a good step up from Soup.

fleetus · Post by **fleetus** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 8:52 am

Deadskins wrote:
Jake wrote:
Report: 'Skins offered Eagles Haynesworth

A lot to get to, but I wanted to get this post up quickly.

Adam Caplan of Scout.com just unloaded an interesting nugget during a TV appearance on CSN.

Per Caplan, the Redskins offered defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth to the Eagles as part of the Donovan McNabb deal, but the Birds didn't want him.

"The Redskins actually offered - I'm told by two league sources - Albert Haynesworth, the oustanding defensive tackle, but Albert Haynesworth has an enormous contract," Caplan said, adding that Haynesworth was a pain to the Redskins' previous coaching staff.

Haynesworth, who will turn 29 in June, signed a $100M contract last offseason with the Redskins, which included $41M in guaranteed money. He received - get this - a $21M roster bonus on April 1. His 2010 and 2011 salaries of $3.6M and $5.4M are guaranteed, according to contract details.

The Eagles have two good defensive tackles in Mike Patterson and Brodrick Bunkley, but neither guy was on the field on third downs last season, and neither has shown the ability to pressure the quarterback up the middle.

Haynesworth had a disappointing debut season with the Redskins, but the thought of him teaming up with Trent Cole deserves at least a moment of thought amid all the other things that are being discussed this evening.

Much more to come.

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/Rep ... worth.html

God, I'm glad we didn't do that, or rather, that the Smegols didn't accept. And I don't agree at all that AH's debut here was a disappointment. We actually had a pass rush last season, and that's why we got him. As for this deal, I like it, especially if we can recoup our #2 in a trade for Campbell. I can't believe the Smegols would let him go to a division opponent. That's just stupid. But Smegol fans have had it in for him since they drafted him instead of Ricky Williams. Man, Ricky Williams has paid off for the Skins in spades!

I don't know who Caplan is, but my guess is he is a Philly guy and is just trying to stir things up. I find it hard to believe. I doubt seriously that Philly would have turned down Haynesworth. I doubt even more that the Skins would offer him. They would eat all of that signing bonus in one lump sum if they trded him. I think this story is fiction.

fleetus · Post by **fleetus** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 8:55 am

The best part of this deal is, twice a year we will face teh Eagles with the ONE PLAYER who knows more about their system and their plays than anyone in the NFL. Can't wait! What week do we play Philly first this season? I want to mark it on my calendar. :lol:

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 8:59 am

I'm still a little blah on the whole thing. Sure, I think it's better to get a veteran than draft someone and throw them right in there. But in our situation, we need lineman. And we need them bad. I don't care who you throw back there, if they don't get better protection, then we're done - AGAIN.

If anyone on here things that McNabb helps us win more than 2 games with the same line, you're nuts.

Cappster · Post by **Cappster** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:00 am

OK so I think we need to try and sign McNugget to a new three year deal, because a 2nd and a conditional 3rd or 4th round pick is a lot to give up just for "one year." With the contract situation aside, which I believe will be taken care of before the start of the season, McNabb gives us the best chance to win IF we repair the offensive line.

I think McNabb will extract all the talent he can out of our young wide receivers and I wouldn't doubt that Moss has one of his best years as a pro this season. So if McNabb can play like he did last year, are we really that far away in terms of having a successful team? The defense is pretty solid, we have a good corp of young receivers, the running backs all have been successful, knowledgeable coaching staff, etc....

The O-Line needs to be #1 priority on draft day. We also need to try and pick up some linemen somewhere else.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:04 am

frankcal20 wrote:I'm still a little blah on the whole thing. Sure, I think it's better to get a veteran than draft someone and throw them right in there. But in our situation, we need lineman. And we need them bad. I don't care who you throw back there, if they don't get better protection, then we're done - AGAIN.

If anyone on here things that McNabb helps us win more than 2 games with the same line, you're nuts.

Well, this move helps us in respect to that goal, too. Now we don't have to worry about drafting a QB in this year's draft, and can use our picks on OL. And this frees us up to trade Campbell for picks or established OL players.

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:06 am

If we just gave up McNabb for a 2nd and 3rd/4th, then we're lucky to get a 3rd, 4th or even a 5th. So we have a 1st, 4th, and a few late round picks. You MUST draft Okung or Bulaga with the 4th or trade down and pick up someone else later in the draft. Sure there needs to be a trade partner but if you can do it, do it.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:12 am

frankcal20 wrote:If we just gave up McNabb for a 2nd and 3rd/4th, then we're lucky to get a 3rd, 4th or even a 5th. So we have a 1st, 4th, and a few late round picks. You MUST draft Okung or Bulaga with the 4th or trade down and pick up someone else later in the draft. Sure there needs to be a trade partner but if you can do it, do it.

Not sure I understand that first sentence.

redskingush · Post by **redskingush** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:20 am

Never a dull moment around here. I knew things were too quiet for a Skins offseason!!!!

HEROHAMO · Post by **HEROHAMO** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:21 am

cleg wrote:As a DC transplant in Philly this is great. I probably know more about why the Eagle fans wanted him gone but I believe more of the failiings had to do with Reid's playcalling than D.M. play. Welcome to Washington.

Those Philthy fans just do not know how good they have had it the past 11 years. How many Qbs have we gone through? How many coaches have we gone through? Philthy fans thats for sure.

If you have a winning piece. You add more pieces around that piece. The Smegols never could put enough around Mcnabb to put them over the hump.

You guys should read some of the forums. Many fans have said good riddens. Wow, what a way to thank the best Qb in franchise history. Good enough you philthy fans get what you deserve!

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:27 am

Deadskins wrote:
frankcal20 wrote:If we just gave up McNabb for a 2nd and 3rd/4th, then we're lucky to get a 3rd, 4th or even a 5th. So we have a 1st, 4th, and a few late round picks. You MUST draft Okung or Bulaga with the 4th or trade down and pick up someone else later in the draft. Sure there needs to be a trade partner but if you can do it, do it.

Not sure I understand that first sentence.

Sorry - I've got "Lack of Sleep - newborn on the brain"

revised: If we just gave up a 2nd and 3rd/4th for McNabb who's a pro-bowler, SB leading QB, then we're lucky to get a 3rd, 4th or even a 5th for Jason Campbell. I just think that with this trade, we set the market on what we could get for JC.

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:35 am

This trade makes total sense to me. We are essentially upgrading Jason Campbell. This has nothing to do with us not rebuilding the team. It has more to do with the fact that we need better play out of our veteran QB because even if we drafted a rookie, they probably would not play right away. And, behind our O Line that would be a disaster.

Shanahan did this with Jake Plummer before giving way to Cutler. You don't throw your high priced rookie QB to the fire behind an awful line. Now we can draft Okung, and continue adding to our O Line before throwing our rookie to the fire.

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:39 am

There's a lot of talk that Okung may not be there and will get drafted at #2 or #3. Now that will most likely leave one of the Stud DT's there. But will that mean that anyone's willing to jump up and swap out with us. Please SF - give us your two #1's and you can have JC too.

VetSkinsFan · Post by **VetSkinsFan** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:49 am

My first thought is that I don't like it. We're giving up a 2nd and a 3rd/4th for 3-5 years, and that's stretcing it. You can't guarantee a QB will hold up past 35, especially behind our line. And unless Shanahan has a few Aces up his sleeve, then we're in for another long year.

And just to emphasize a point: We've given up 2 picks(2nd and 3rd/4th) for a 3-5 year guy. And for his replacement, we'll probably drop another 1st rnd. So for our future franchise QB (and this is even stretching considering our past luch with franchise QBs) we're giving up a 1st, HIGH 2nd, and a 3rd or 4th. That's a big price to pay.

I'm still of the mindset that JC can do better until the Shanahans if we focused on the Oline. I know it's the minority opinion. I also think that JC's better than Grossman.

I believe in the long run, this hurts our rebuilding. I still have faith in ShanAllen, but this trade doesn't give me a warm an fuzzy currently.

funbuncher · Post by **funbuncher** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:49 am

Scottskins wrote:mosely thinks either the raiders or bills give us their #2 for campbell. If that happens, I like this trade a little more...

Well let's hope Mosely is right, but the moment we traded for McNabb, we lost some leverage. Surprised we didn't trade him beforehand to get the most value. That's GM 101, so maybe we plan to keep him?

Also, there was a report about week ago that the Eagles we asking for at least a 2nd rd pick in the 40's. So we gave them the 37th, and either our 3rd or 4th next year. ?

For everyone who thinks this is great, go watch the Eagles last two games against the Cowboys from last year. I'm good friends with an Eagles fan, and I saw them both. In fact, I do believe McNabb was the only QB in the league to lose to Dallas 3 times last year. Hell, we swept the Eagles and McNabb 2 years ago with JC as our QB.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:57 am

I just think that with this trade, we set the market on what we could get for JC.

No. The standard was set by the Chargers and the Seahawks with the Charlie Whitehurst trade (Seattle sent a second round pick for a backup who has never thrown a regular season pass).

There are several teams that are extremely needy. The possibility of a second round pick in exchange for Campbell is very realistic.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:59 am

I'm good friends with an Eagles fan

Sorry... I just think that speaks more to your judgment than his. :wink:

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:01 am

I don't think that's going to happen - only because they know that we don't need him. Also, JC has a bit of leverage in determining where he goes too. He's only got one year left on his deal and then he's a UFA. No team is going to trade for him if there is a chance that he could be gone in a year.

The best place he could go is to Carolina. Decent line, awesome run game and receivers similar to what we have here.

Snout · Post by **Snout** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:10 am

I like this move. We trade draft picks for proven players. At 33, McNabb might still be around for a long time. Quarterbacks really can play forever -- as long as they have protection. Now we don't have to waste our first round pick rolling the dice on another quarterback that will turn out to be another bust.

Now I hope we trade down with the #4 pick and take more blue collar linemen.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:10 am

After sleeping on it, I guess I'm not that upset about the trade. My main beef is my personal hatred for McNabb, which I'll get over eventually since he's not wearing that god-awful turquoise "green" (or whatever color it is) jersey.

Is the price too high? I think it depends on how many years we get out of McNabb. Suppose he plays here for 3 solid seasons and gives us a serviceable 4th year (maybe he gets replaced mid-season). While this is optimistic and a best-case scenario, in that event I think he's certainly worth a second and next year's third-round pick.

Alternatively, if we can get something as high as a 3rd round pick for Campbell from another team, then I think this trade is worth it as it stands.

So, there seems to be several ways that this could prove worth it. It'll only look rotten in retrospect if we get fewer than two years out of McNabb and can't get any value out of Campbell. (I think the odds are on our side, in this case.) I can't deny that McNabb is a big improvement over Campbell. And there isn't anything wrong with having acquired him, provided we take care of that OL come the draft.