The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

How about Haynesworth & Campbell to the Rams for their 1st, and we eat the 21 Mil just paid to Fat Albert.

RayNAustin wrote:How about Haynesworth & Campbell to the Rams for their 1st, and we eat the 21 Mil just paid to Fat Albert.

I thought about that trade this morning. It would make sense. I would pat this orginization on the ass for that one, and give Dan a standing ovation for eating the salary

chiefhog44 wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:How about Haynesworth & Campbell to the Rams for their 1st, and we eat the 21 Mil just paid to Fat Albert.

I thought about that trade this morning. It would make sense. I would pat this orginization on the ass for that one, and give Dan a standing ovation for eating the salary

It would make sense for us, not the Rams.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:How about Haynesworth & Campbell to the Rams for their 1st, and we eat the 21 Mil just paid to Fat Albert.

I thought about that trade this morning. It would make sense. I would pat this orginization on the ass for that one, and give Dan a standing ovation for eating the salary

It would make sense for us, not the Rams.

There's reason to dislike this deal from each side.

Deadskins wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:How about Haynesworth & Campbell to the Rams for their 1st, and we eat the 21 Mil just paid to Fat Albert.

I thought about that trade this morning. It would make sense. I would pat this orginization on the ass for that one, and give Dan a standing ovation for eating the salary

It would make sense for us, not the Rams.

There's reason to dislike this deal from each side.

Dumping an overpaid, injury prone DT and crappy QB for the first overall pick in the draft. What is to dislike from our side????

Don't get me wrong, Haynesworth is a fine player, but I think anyone would trade him for the first overall pick. Is he worth what he is getting paid -- NO. It is crazy to think he is worth THE NUMBER ONE PICK. The eagles turned down the Haynesworth for McNabb trade -- instead taking our second round pick. Do you really think that Haynesworth with JC is worth the number one?? Not a chance. Besides, JC is worth a 4th AT BEST. What makes anyone believe that a market-tested second round talent and a fourth round talent gets you to the number one pick???

And if STL is thinking QB with the first, then there is no way they are going to trade Bradford for Haynesworth and JC. That is just plain dumb.

Unless the STL GM is a habitual user of crack, this trade has no chance of happening.

markshark84 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:How about Haynesworth & Campbell to the Rams for their 1st, and we eat the 21 Mil just paid to Fat Albert.

I thought about that trade this morning. It would make sense. I would pat this orginization on the ass for that one, and give Dan a standing ovation for eating the salary

It would make sense for us, not the Rams.

There's reason to dislike this deal from each side.

Dumping an overpaid, injury prone DT and crappy QB for the first overall pick in the draft. What is to dislike from our side????

Don't get me wrong, Haynesworth is a fine player, but I think anyone would trade him for the first overall pick. Is he worth what he is getting paid -- NO. It is crazy to think he is worth THE NUMBER ONE PICK. The eagles turned down the Haynesworth for McNabb trade -- instead taking our second round pick. Do you really think that Haynesworth with JC is worth the number one?? Not a chance. Besides, JC is worth a 4th AT BEST. What makes anyone believe that a market-tested second round talent and a fourth round talent gets you to the number one pick???

And if STL is thinking QB with the first, then there is no way they are going to trade Bradford for Haynesworth and JC. That is just plain dumb.

Unless the STL GM is a habitual user of crack, this trade has no chance of happening.

The Smegols turned it down because that was before he was paid his $21 million roster bonus. Who do you suggest we take with the #1 pick. The reason not to like it from our side, is we would only be getting one pick in compensation for two players, even if it is the first overall pick. I suppose we could trade down (probably the #4, noit the #1), but we would also need to get a replacement for Haynesworth right away, so we probably need the pick to get Suh.

Deadskins wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:How about Haynesworth & Campbell to the Rams for their 1st, and we eat the 21 Mil just paid to Fat Albert.

I thought about that trade this morning. It would make sense. I would pat this orginization on the ass for that one, and give Dan a standing ovation for eating the salary

It would make sense for us, not the Rams.

There's reason to dislike this deal from each side.

I think you're thinking it includes the #4 pick, in which I agree with you. But if it really is just Albert & JC for the #1 then obviously we would do it, but I can't believe the Rams ever would. Even the Boss Raider or Matt Millen wouldn't do that one. Well, maybe Millen if there were a top receiver in the draft, but there isn't.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:How about Haynesworth & Campbell to the Rams for their 1st, and we eat the 21 Mil just paid to Fat Albert.

I thought about that trade this morning. It would make sense. I would pat this orginization on the ass for that one, and give Dan a standing ovation for eating the salary

It would make sense for us, not the Rams.

There's reason to dislike this deal from each side.

I think you're thinking it includes the #4 pick, in which I agree with you. But if it really is just Albert & JC for the #1 then obviously we would do it, but I can't believe the Rams ever would. Even the Boss Raider or Matt Millen wouldn't do that one. Well, maybe Millen if there were a top receiver in the draft, but there isn't.

No, not including the #4 pick. I explained my reasoning in the post immediately preceding yours.

Deadskins wrote:No, not including the #4 pick. I explained my reasoning in the post immediately preceding yours.

So you'd seriously hesitate to trade a late 20's DL and a QB who blows for the #1 overall pick in the draft? That's insane. That we'd take Suh to replace him isn't a given. Sure that's a need, but we have no QB of the future and no offensive tackles, those are giant needs too and we could get a top rookie for one of those positions instead of a DL on the downside of his career.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:No, not including the #4 pick. I explained my reasoning in the post immediately preceding yours.

So you'd seriously hesitate to trade a late 20's DL and a QB who blows for the #1 overall pick in the draft? That's insane. That we'd take Suh to replace him isn't a given. Sure that's a need, but we have no QB of the future and no offensive tackles, those are giant needs too and we could get a top rookie for one of those positions instead of a DL on the downside of his career.

So you're going to overreach by taking a player at #1 who probably wouldn't get picked until the mid 1st round, just because you made this trade? Let's say you take Bradford with the #1 pick (your QB of the future) then Okung is gone at #4, because now that Bradford is off the table, someone else takes him at two or three. Then you are overreaching at #4. I said you could trade down, because I think we need more than one pick out of that "late 20's DL and a QB who blows" even if it is the #1 overall pick. Add to that the cost of signing two of the top four picks, the year before a rookie wage scale takes effect (assuming a new CBA gets done in the next year), and I can see lots of reasons for the Skins not to make that deal.

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:No, not including the #4 pick. I explained my reasoning in the post immediately preceding yours.

So you'd seriously hesitate to trade a late 20's DL and a QB who blows for the #1 overall pick in the draft? That's insane. That we'd take Suh to replace him isn't a given. Sure that's a need, but we have no QB of the future and no offensive tackles, those are giant needs too and we could get a top rookie for one of those positions instead of a DL on the downside of his career.

So you're going to overreach by taking a player at #1 who probably wouldn't get picked until the mid 1st round, just because you made this trade? Let's say you take Bradford with the #1 pick (your QB of the future) then Okung is gone at #4, because now that Bradford is off the table, someone else takes him at two or three. Then you are overreaching at #4. I said you could trade down, because I think we need more than one pick out of that "late 20's DL and a QB who blows" even if it is the #1 overall pick. Add to that the cost of signing two of the top four picks, the year before a rookie wage scale takes effect (assuming a new CBA gets done in the next year), and I can see lots of reasons for the Skins not to make that deal.

No way do the Skins turn down the first overall pick for Big AL and JC. Nobody is dumb enough to say no to that. That is an absolute "no brainer" from our end.

Yeah, I'd take that one in a heartbeat. It doesn't really do, in my opinion, to object to it on the basis that we might take Bradford with the #1 and then Okung might be gone at four. All reports are that the Rams are taking Bradford at #1, so using the same logic shouldn't we be nervous at having 'only' the #4 pick? (After all, Okung might be gone by then.)

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:No, not including the #4 pick. I explained my reasoning in the post immediately preceding yours.

So you'd seriously hesitate to trade a late 20's DL and a QB who blows for the #1 overall pick in the draft? That's insane. That we'd take Suh to replace him isn't a given. Sure that's a need, but we have no QB of the future and no offensive tackles, those are giant needs too and we could get a top rookie for one of those positions instead of a DL on the downside of his career.

So you're going to overreach by taking a player at #1 who probably wouldn't get picked until the mid 1st round, just because you made this trade?

Hey dude, sorry, I wasn't really listening when I was talking. Who was I taking again at #1 who probably wouldn't get picked until the mid first round just because I made the trade again? I can't remember that part.

Deadskins wrote:Let's say you take Bradford with the #1 pick (your QB of the future) then Okung is gone at #4, because now that Bradford is off the table, someone else takes him at two or three

First of all that wouldn't bother me, I'd take Suh or McCoy, one of them would have to be there and they are both a half dozen years younger then the Big Guy we'd be giving up. But what is your statement based on that Okung wouldn't be there? And think about this.

You're saying if we pick Bradford at #1, Okung won't be there at #4, which means we'd have to take a DT (best player) to replace Big Al. OK, but since the same teams pick 2 and 3, that means if the Rams do, which is the word on the street, Okung won't be there either. That means we get a DT if we take the best player and we still have Big Al, only then we don't need another DT as a huge hole.

Personally I think Okung will be there either way, but if you're right, you just made a good argument we do the deal.

Deadskins wrote:Then you are overreaching at #4. I said you could trade down, because I think we need more than one pick out of that "late 20's DL and a QB who blows" even if it is the #1 overall pick. Add to that the cost of signing two of the top four picks, the year before a rookie wage scale takes effect (assuming a new CBA gets done in the next year), and I can see lots of reasons for the Skins not to make that deal.

And here you completely lose me

Look, the only reason I made that scenario was as an example, I wasn't saying that's the way I thought it would work out. I would make the deal if I thought I could trade out of one of the spots (#1 or #4) for more picks. I just don't think we get enough value by holding two of the top four in relation to the cost.

markshark84 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:How about Haynesworth & Campbell to the Rams for their 1st, and we eat the 21 Mil just paid to Fat Albert.

I thought about that trade this morning. It would make sense. I would pat this orginization on the ass for that one, and give Dan a standing ovation for eating the salary

It would make sense for us, not the Rams.

There's reason to dislike this deal from each side.

Dumping an overpaid, injury prone DT and crappy QB for the first overall pick in the draft. What is to dislike from our side????

Don't get me wrong, Haynesworth is a fine player, but I think anyone would trade him for the first overall pick. Is he worth what he is getting paid -- NO. It is crazy to think he is worth THE NUMBER ONE PICK. The eagles turned down the Haynesworth for McNabb trade -- instead taking our second round pick. Do you really think that Haynesworth with JC is worth the number one?? Not a chance. Besides, JC is worth a 4th AT BEST. What makes anyone believe that a market-tested second round talent and a fourth round talent gets you to the number one pick???

And if STL is thinking QB with the first, then there is no way they are going to trade Bradford for Haynesworth and JC. That is just plain dumb.

Unless the STL GM is a habitual user of crack, this trade has no chance of happening.

No, not really ... it makes sense for both sides. First, Fat Al is a franchise level player, and not some aged and broken down has been. (just because some here are sour on Haynesworth doesn't diminish his value, his contribution to improving our d-line las year or what he might mean to someone else's next year) If he were a restricted free agent, he would garner a 1st on his own. With his salary paid up ... a team taking him in a trade right now would effectively get one of the most dominant DT in football for pocket change (3 years @ 16 Mil), with an option at the end. No salary negotiations, no big signing bonus, and very little cap hit over the next three years (since the Redskins already have eaten the biggest portion of the money). Plus, they'd get a steady, if less than spectacular QB (according to many, Campbell is the best RFA QB available right now) which they could use as a place holder while picking up another young QB prospect (McCoy) with their 2nd, and have time to bring him along slowly.

This trade would work for both sides .... I just don't see how Bradford is going to pay off for the Rams in the near term, and they don't seem to have pockets as deep as the Redskins. If they keep the pick and pick Bradford .. what do they have? A huge outlay of money for the #1 overall for a player that may not produce anything for a couple of years ... or maybe never (as is often the case), especially if they are forced into playing him too early, and ruin his career.

The possibility also exists to sweeten the deal by requesting the Redskin's 4th rounder this year, or 2011 3rd or 4th (which ever one Philly doesn't get).

In turn the Redskins could use both the 1st and 4th overall picks to take Okung and Williams, and immediately put that o-line into the best shape it's been since the Hogs were here. With the pick up of McNabb, that's all the Redskins need right now.

Are Haynesworth and Campbell worth the #1 overall at face value? No. But with the huge (21 Million) we just handed fat Al, that makes him a big time addition to a needy defense for pocket change. (It all depends on how SOLD they are on Bradford being the next Phillip Rivers ... which I don't see at all).

Keep in mind, the money they would save by offloading the 1st overall, plus the money they saved on fat Albert, would give them tremendous salary leverage to fill the many holes they have.

Deadskins wrote:

markshark84 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:How about Haynesworth & Campbell to the Rams for their 1st, and we eat the 21 Mil just paid to Fat Albert.

I thought about that trade this morning. It would make sense. I would pat this orginization on the ass for that one, and give Dan a standing ovation for eating the salary

It would make sense for us, not the Rams.

There's reason to dislike this deal from each side.

Dumping an overpaid, injury prone DT and crappy QB for the first overall pick in the draft. What is to dislike from our side????

Don't get me wrong, Haynesworth is a fine player, but I think anyone would trade him for the first overall pick. Is he worth what he is getting paid -- NO. It is crazy to think he is worth THE NUMBER ONE PICK. The eagles turned down the Haynesworth for McNabb trade -- instead taking our second round pick. Do you really think that Haynesworth with JC is worth the number one?? Not a chance. Besides, JC is worth a 4th AT BEST. What makes anyone believe that a market-tested second round talent and a fourth round talent gets you to the number one pick???

And if STL is thinking QB with the first, then there is no way they are going to trade Bradford for Haynesworth and JC. That is just plain dumb.

Unless the STL GM is a habitual user of crack, this trade has no chance of happening.

The Smegols turned it down because that was before he was paid his $21 million roster bonus. Who do you suggest we take with the #1 pick. The reason not to like it from our side, is we would only be getting one pick in compensation for two players, even if it is the first overall pick. I suppose we could trade down (probably the #4, noit the #1), but we would also need to get a replacement for Haynesworth right away, so we probably need the pick to get Suh.

Exactly ... the money just paid to Haynesworth makes him a deal so long as the Redskins don't demand some of that money back ... if they take the money hit ... the team picking up AH would be getting one of the best DT in the league for chump change.

I think some teams that might be interested in Campbell are taking a wait and see approach, thinking that he might become available for a 4th or 5th rounder as the draft nears.

We also have to keep in mind that Allen and Shanny are pretty shrewd (read: Portis-Bailey deal ... and McNabb).

I picked the Rams as an example ... because they have many needs and aren't a team that demonstrates big pockets ... but anyone looking to take a DT in the first round that also needs a solid backup option at QB could also be enticed by such a deal.

Regardless of perceptions here in Redskin land ... Haynesworth is still one of the dominant defensive players in the league.

First, I want to point out something about the EGirls passing on Haynseworth in the McNabb trade. No one ever said we offered Big Belly straight up for the rock skipping QB. We could have offered Jabba the D Tackle for McSkip AND the EGirls 2nd.

Don't say that is that is absurd, remember Shannahan fleeced us for Champ for Portis and a our second, when it was Denver that should have been giving the 2nd with Porits to get Bailey!

My point is, you can’t assume it was a straight up trade!

Second, if anyone thinks either Suh or McKoy (or any DT in this draft) would improve a team as much as Fat Albert, then I hope you don't have a piss test where you work!

DL are notorious for taking a year or more to transition to the NFL and become impact players. They are also one of the riskiest pick at the top of the draft. The olds are either McKoy or Suh will be a bust. Heck the odds say one will be a flat out bust and the other will be so so!

The odds say Bradford will be a bust too! So we really don't want to go any higher then #4.

I say package Haynesworth and JC to the Niners for their #13 pick or better yet give them JC and the #4 for their #13 and #17. We then draft two OTs with those picks and keep Gravitational AL.

skinsfan#33 wrote:Second, if anyone thinks either Suh or McKoy (or any DT in this draft) would improve a team as much as Fat Albert, then I hope you don't have a piss test where you work!

Do these numbers mean anything to you?

22 and 28.

And a question, do you know how long a typical NFL career is for a DL?

Now why do you suppose we may want to make the trade even though as you accurately point out in the 2010 season Fat Albert is probably better then either of the tykes? Cue the Jeopardy music...

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:Second, if anyone thinks either Suh or McKoy (or any DT in this draft) would improve a team as much as Fat Albert, then I hope you don't have a piss test where you work!

Do these numbers mean anything to you?

22 and 28.

And a question, do you know how long a typical NFL career is for a DL?

Now why do you suppose we may want to make the trade even though as you accurately point out in the 2010 season Fat Albert is probably better then either of the tykes? Cue the Jeopardy music...

Reggie White, 15 years, retired 2001 at 40 years old. Signed with Green Bay at the age of 32, and played 6 extremely productive years, and helped them to a Super Bowl.

RayNAustin wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:Second, if anyone thinks either Suh or McKoy (or any DT in this draft) would improve a team as much as Fat Albert, then I hope you don't have a piss test where you work!

Do these numbers mean anything to you?

22 and 28.

And a question, do you know how long a typical NFL career is for a DL?

Now why do you suppose we may want to make the trade even though as you accurately point out in the 2010 season Fat Albert is probably better then either of the tykes? Cue the Jeopardy music...

Reggie White, 15 years, retired 2001 at 40 years old. Signed with Green Bay at the age of 32, and played 6 extremely productive years, and helped them to a Super Bowl.

OK. And what conclusion do we draw from that Ray? Is this another Brady was a sixth rounder so anyone should be able to draft a HOF quarterback in the sixth round argument?

I'm thinking the Rams will pick Suh with the first pick, unless we trade Campbell and Hanesworth for it. I think we pick up Bradford in the first no matter a trade (either at 4, or at #1 with the Rams pick). It would make such sense for the Rams to do that trade though.

They would have Haynesworth and Campbell for, what equates to Bradford. Then in the second they could take Mccoy or Tebow.

On the other hand, we would get Bradford and Okung/Williams.

I would be extremely happy with that outcome, and If I were the Rams, I would think I got better of the deal. Fair trade.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:Second, if anyone thinks either Suh or McKoy (or any DT in this draft) would improve a team as much as Fat Albert, then I hope you don't have a piss test where you work!

Do these numbers mean anything to you?

22 and 28.

And a question, do you know how long a typical NFL career is for a DL?

Now why do you suppose we may want to make the trade even though as you accurately point out in the 2010 season Fat Albert is probably better then either of the tykes? Cue the Jeopardy music...

Reggie White, 15 years, retired 2001 at 40 years old. Signed with Green Bay at the age of 32, and played 6 extremely productive years, and helped them to a Super Bowl.

OK. And what conclusion do we draw from that Ray? Is this another Brady was a sixth rounder so anyone should be able to draft a HOF quarterback in the sixth round argument?

No, MR. Gazoo I see no parallel in that analogy. I merely used Reggie White as an example to illustrate how ludicrous it was of you to insinuate that Fat Al has one foot in the old folks home at 28 years old. And I'm not suggesting he has 12 more years to play like Reggie White had ... just that it's not such a stretch to think he might have 3 or 4 more good years.

Of course I could have just as easily used Bruce Smith as an example, too, as well as several others that make it past 30.

Deadskins wrote:

markshark84 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:How about Haynesworth & Campbell to the Rams for their 1st, and we eat the 21 Mil just paid to Fat Albert.

I thought about that trade this morning. It would make sense. I would pat this orginization on the ass for that one, and give Dan a standing ovation for eating the salary

It would make sense for us, not the Rams.

There's reason to dislike this deal from each side.

Dumping an overpaid, injury prone DT and crappy QB for the first overall pick in the draft. What is to dislike from our side????

Don't get me wrong, Haynesworth is a fine player, but I think anyone would trade him for the first overall pick. Is he worth what he is getting paid -- NO. It is crazy to think he is worth THE NUMBER ONE PICK. The eagles turned down the Haynesworth for McNabb trade -- instead taking our second round pick. Do you really think that Haynesworth with JC is worth the number one?? Not a chance. Besides, JC is worth a 4th AT BEST. What makes anyone believe that a market-tested second round talent and a fourth round talent gets you to the number one pick???

And if STL is thinking QB with the first, then there is no way they are going to trade Bradford for Haynesworth and JC. That is just plain dumb.

Unless the STL GM is a habitual user of crack, this trade has no chance of happening.

The Smegols turned it down because that was before he was paid his $21 million roster bonus. Who do you suggest we take with the #1 pick. The reason not to like it from our side, is we would only be getting one pick in compensation for two players, even if it is the first overall pick. I suppose we could trade down (probably the #4, noit the #1), but we would also need to get a replacement for Haynesworth right away, so we probably need the pick to get Suh.

No sure it was because of the money -- the skins could have included the compensation in the deal. That wasn't what got in the way of that trade.

1 pick for two players isn't a problem for the skins when they already have a starting QB and a potential backup in Grossman. We are looking to dump JC anyway. Besides we gave up 2 PICKS FOR ONE PLAYER in McNabb. I doubt that was the reasoning behind the deal.

markshark84 wrote:1 pick for two players isn't a problem for the skins when they already have a starting QB and a potential backup in Grossman. We are looking to dump JC anyway. Besides we gave up 2 PICKS FOR ONE PLAYER in McNabb.

Right, we gave up two picks for one player, and now you want us to give up two players for one pick, further limiting our ability build through the draft.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:No, not including the #4 pick. I explained my reasoning in the post immediately preceding yours.

So you'd seriously hesitate to trade a late 20's DL and a QB who blows for the #1 overall pick in the draft? That's insane. That we'd take Suh to replace him isn't a given. Sure that's a need, but we have no QB of the future and no offensive tackles, those are giant needs too and we could get a top rookie for one of those positions instead of a DL on the downside of his career.

So you're going to overreach by taking a player at #1 who probably wouldn't get picked until the mid 1st round, just because you made this trade? Let's say you take Bradford with the #1 pick (your QB of the future) then Okung is gone at #4, because now that Bradford is off the table, someone else takes him at two or three. Then you are overreaching at #4. I said you could trade down, because I think we need more than one pick out of that "late 20's DL and a QB who blows" even if it is the #1 overall pick. Add to that the cost of signing two of the top four picks, the year before a rookie wage scale takes effect (assuming a new CBA gets done in the next year), and I can see lots of reasons for the Skins not to make that deal.

No way do the Skins turn down the first overall pick for Big AL and JC. Nobody is dumb enough to say no to that. That is an absolute "no brainer" from our end.

I don't know. You'll pay more in salary to Bradford at #1 than what Campbell and Haynesworth's salaries are combined. And Bradford has a steep learning curve to succeed in the NFL. JC and Big al will contribute day one. It is not a no-brainer by any means.