How Do You Play This One?

Posted: July 14th, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Philadelphia Eagles | 32 Comments »

An interesting thought occurred to me.  Let’s assume for a second that Jim Washburn has gone to Andy Reid, Juan Castillo, and/or Howie Roseman and said “Please go get me Albert Haynesworth.  I’ll vouch for him.  Heck, he can crash at my place and I’ll make sure he stays out of trouble.”

How should the Eagles proceed?

Do you aggressively call the Skins once the offseason starts and offer a late pick?

Do you wait a week or so and then call the Skins about a trade?  How much do you try to negotiate?

Do you stay quiet and wait for them to cut Big Al?  You could even leak to the media you have no interest and trying playing mind games.

The trick here is that we keep hearing that Washington doesn’t want Big Al to join the Eagles.  Okay, but what if the Eagles are the only team willing to deal for him initially.  Is it better for them to wash their hands of Big Al and make a quick deal or to hold him and keep Al away from the fine city of Philadelphia?  How long should the Skins keep him around if no one is offering anything?  At what point do they need to forget where he might go and just send him packing?

I don’t know if the Eagles are interested in Big Al.  If they are, it will be fascinating to see how Howie and Andy go about pursuing him.

All of this is funny when you think back to last year.  The Eagles weren’t scared at all of trading their franchise QB to a division rival.  Now we hear the Skins are petrified of having their colossal free agent bust DT end up in Philly.  In a way, that tells you all you need to know about the two organizations.

32 Comments on “How Do You Play This One?”

  1. 1 ATG said at 4:19 AM on July 14th, 2011:

    I think you call and make an offer. Apparently, the remainder of his contract isn’t unreasonable and you avoid a desperate team driving up the price as a free agent.

    Not an unreasonable offer, maybe the leadership books that used to be in McD’s office, some recipes on how to serve toasted safeties and a supply of worms to repopulate their stadium.

  2. 2 mcud said at 6:30 AM on July 14th, 2011:

    +1 to ATG’s argument. Sensible AND funny.

  3. 3 TyPhilly21 said at 6:49 AM on July 14th, 2011:

    Trade kolb for DRC and a 3/4 send that 3/4 skins way with a blueprint on how to beat the giants for Fat Al, done deal

  4. 4 TyPhilly21 said at 6:52 AM on July 14th, 2011:

    I’ll also wager the skins will not finish above .500 before Shanahan is fired.

  5. 5 MegaLinky – July 14, 2011 – Could Brandon Graham’s microfracture surgery push the Eagles to make a strong play for Charles Johnson? – Blogging the bEast said at 7:48 AM on July 14th, 2011:

    […] How do you play this one? – Tommy Lawlor, IgglesBlitz […]

  6. 6 MikeC said at 7:51 AM on July 14th, 2011:

    Dan Graziano over at the NFL East blog on ESPN had some thoughts on this yesterday –

    I’m not sure I agree that Shanny will sit him for 16 games before sending him to Philly but I do think they are pretty reluctant to look as bad in a trade to Philly as they did last year.

    I think I’ve made my views on Fat Albert pretty clear. I’m certainly not going to loose any sleep over not getting him and I certainly wouldn’t want to see it done for anything short of solid value.

  7. 7 mcud said at 8:39 AM on July 14th, 2011:


    I wont be upset at all if we make a strong offer to Johnson or Edwards, but the guy I really find interesting is Kiwanuka. I always thought he was miscast as a LB. Guy seemed to be born to play LDE.

    Giants have a terrific LE. Kiwi has been injured. A decent offer and a chance to play with his hand on the ground might be enticing for him.

    He’d make a fine plan B, and I wont be upset if he is plan A at DE.

  8. 8 Thunderlips said at 9:30 AM on July 14th, 2011:

    I don’t know if Washington is going to make any deals with us after the way Andy treated them after the McNabb deal….

  9. 9 McG said at 10:28 AM on July 14th, 2011:

    Sometimes you throw ideas at a wall and see what sticks…

    How about Mike Patterson for Albert plus a conditional pick?

  10. 10 T_S_O_P said at 11:17 AM on July 14th, 2011:


    That would precariously leave us with Dixon, Bunk and Laws both of whom are in their final year of contract. Would it not be more prudent to trade one of them instead?

  11. 11 McG said at 11:32 AM on July 14th, 2011:

    Yeah I wasn’t necessarily saying it was a great idea… or even one that Evergreen would consider. I was merely speculating that Mike Patterson has proven that he has the ability to consume blockers and make plays laterally which should make him valuable to the Redskins (I would think) I was also thinking they wouldn’t necessarily want a player who’s contract is about to expire, or a player who was “stolen” off their own practice squad….

    Maybe we just don’t have a player in house who makes sense to trade? I’m assuming though that if we traded Patterson we could probably extend either Bunk (who may thrive under washburn or laws).

  12. 12 izzylangfan said at 12:52 PM on July 14th, 2011:


    Brilliant idea about Giants blueprint. But also take Dan Snyder to lunch tell him what a brilliant job he is doing and to keep up the good work. That should seal the deal.

  13. 13 TyPhilly21 said at 1:43 PM on July 14th, 2011:

    I just wanted to say that the Redskins are idiots(…obviously) if they really think sustained success can happen by 1) not spending a ton of money for 1 year of FA and 2)adding a bunch of marginal talent from 1 draft and then 3) trying to win FA this season.

    They have virtually ZERO up and coming young guys(Orakpo and…? maybe Trent Williams), but they are worried about us getting a DL that is not productive for them, instead of acquiring draft picks to rebuild.

    How is it that we are the youngest team in the division yet we are the ones coming off the division title? I am so thankful that they are so horribly run that we are basically in a 3 team division.

  14. 14 Greg said at 2:10 PM on July 14th, 2011:

    Something tells me that the Eagles are going to end up with Big Al, and not have to spend anything more than a 5th Rounder, maybe a 4th.
    The best part of our negotiating position is that we are not desperate at all. If we don’t get him, then we certainly don’t need him.
    We have 4 very competent DT’s to play with. Especially Dixon, that boy is about to have a big jump. All 4 of those guys are hungry, and they are going to LOVE playing for Wash.

  15. 15 CVD said at 2:21 PM on July 14th, 2011:


    i was thinking the same thing. i would trade patt. patt may not fit and has a super long contract. leave us with dixon, fat al, laws and bunk. after this year we can decide who to keep bunk or laws.

    im def good with that.

  16. 16 Marc G said at 2:38 PM on July 14th, 2011:

    Tommy — I DISAGREE.

    The ‘Skins approach is not about the organizations.

    It’s about the PLAYERS.

    I think the Eagles decided that, all in all, McNabb would not hurt them in Washington for any number of reasons — not the least of which was he had worse receivers than he ever had in Philadelphia.

    Conversely, I think the ‘Skins realize that Haynesworth not only has plenty left in the tank (as I think D-Mac still does.

    But, unlike a quarterback, Haynesworth’s role in the Washburn defense is to attack upfield. He would not have to depend on the performance of others for measured individual success.

    It’s apples and oranges here because of the players. Not the organizations. In my humble opinion

  17. 17 McG said at 2:41 PM on July 14th, 2011:

    Off topic… a slightly interesting article on which nfc west team needs Kolb the most.

    Really, don’t bother reading unless you have 1 min. of your life that you don’t know what to do with… but it sure raises a red flag that teams SHOULD pay well for him.

  18. 18 McG said at 2:46 PM on July 14th, 2011:


    I think you’re missing the point… the point being that the organization known as the Eagles seems to evaluate talent and assign money more appropriately than the Redskins.

    How about comparing apples to apples if you don’t like McNabb (ditching a player) to Albert (acquiring a player).

    Lets compare Asante Samuel (acquired) to Albert (acquired)? Both were big names, and landed big contracts… Wanna let me know which one worked out better?

  19. 19 McG said at 2:52 PM on July 14th, 2011:

    Kolb’s 6.3 yds per pass dwarfs what AZ did last year, beats out what the Rams put together, almost on pace with the Seahawks…

    AZ needs Kolb… for DRC plus a 4th, which we send to washington for Fat Al?

  20. 20 Tommy Lawlor said at 3:13 PM on July 14th, 2011:

    RE: talking to WAS

    I have no problem with giving up a 5th round pick for Big Al. My point is will we hurt our chances if we’re too aggressive? WAS seems nervous about letting us have Big Al. If we’re all gung ho right away, that might make them really panic and decide to trade him for a 7th rounder to any other taker.

    I want us to get Big Al. I’m just curious what the wisest course of action is in regard to going after him.

  21. 21 Tommy Lawlor said at 3:53 PM on July 14th, 2011:

    @ ATG …

    Love the idea about offering the Skins some worms to repopulate their field. I’m jealous that I didn’t think of that line.

    RE: Kiwanuka

    I’ve mentioned him in some phone conversations with a buddy. He could be a nice fit with a 1-year deal, to let each side see if that’s the right thing.

  22. 22 Tommy Lawlor said at 4:04 PM on July 14th, 2011:

    RE: trading Mike Patterson

    I’m willing to trade Mike, but I don’t know if going to a 3-4 team would be wise. Mike is likely losing weight to adjust to the new scheme. He’d need to turn around and bulk up to adjust to 3-4 NT. Plus, I don’t think he’s ever played that spot. He’d be a risky acquisition for a 3-4 team, although he’s a high character guy and has a good contract (opposite of Big Al).

    RE: comparing WAS and PHI

    Marc, I think it is absolutely about the organizations. The Skins are worried about what the player will do when he leaves. They’re thinking about the other team. They’re worried about perception.

    The Eagles let Donovan choose his destination last year. Reid let him pick WAS. There wasn’t hesitation because the Eagles were trying to do right by Donnie, but also believed in themselves.

    I guess part of the point is that a good organization is focused on getting the right 53 players and coaching them up. WAS isn’t going to win the Super Bowl this year. Let Big Al go. So what if he comes here or goes to MIN or TEN or wherever and plays well. Let that go. Focus on building toward winning the SB.

    The sooner the Skins are done with Big Al, the better off they’ll be. The marriage has been a huge disaster. Don’t prolong it by playing games to dictate where he’ll go. That’s Shanny wasting time worrying about Big Al and the Eagles when he should be focused on his team and what moves them forward.

    If the Skins were a SB contender, this would be different. They aren’t right now. They need to forget Al and get their own house in order.

  23. 23 Midnight Greenville said at 4:13 PM on July 14th, 2011:

    How about they do something really clever, like negotiate with Cleveland beforehand: Get Heckert to offer their 6th round pick for Fat Albert, with the understanding that we’ll turn around and give Cleveland our 5th rounder for him. Has any team ever pulled something like that off? I guess no one would ever trust Cleveland again so it won’t happen, but it would be outside the box thinking, anyway.

  24. 24 McG said at 4:18 PM on July 14th, 2011:

    If Washington is that convinced that Big Al is a force to contend with, and if Washington wants to get the best production out of Rocky McIntosh… why don’t they just go back to a 4-3? If they are going to win the Superbowl this year by supplementing their team through radical FA moves…

    Oh wait, I forgot… they need to pull all kinds of crazy free agency moves to make the 3-4 defense work. I’m sure that will work out well for them.

  25. 25 CVD said at 4:51 PM on July 14th, 2011:

    If the skins can get a 7th rounder, then I would think they would take that and not cut him. If we offer a 5 and an afc team offers a 5, we lose. So no matter what if we really want him we have to try and get him and not wait to see if he is cut. If we gave up a 4 and Clemons for Darryl tap, why not give up a 4 or 5 for fat al?

    This guy was unstoppable up the middle. Consistent pressure up the middle and Cole on the outside. He could completely change our defense (if we get the good fat al). Just think about how bad he wants to get back at shanny and combine that with washburn. I would love to get this guy.

  26. 26 Thunderlips said at 5:24 PM on July 14th, 2011:

    I don’t think Snyder/Shanahan can afford to loose another trade to the Eagles. Both are extreme ego-maniacs. I think they’d sooner keep Al, team consequences be damned, than see him go the the Eagles and flourish. Our only hope is that Dan Snyder may be in a weakened state due to free-agency withdraw symptoms. It’s also been awhile since his last coach change. I imagine he’s spending his days in a dark room, perpetually updating his ‘Potential Head-Coaches’ Rolodex and planing his 10 year $175 million contract offer to Braylon Edwards.

    @Midnight Green

    Your backdoor Cleveland deal could work, but seems unlikely. You may remember that when the Packers traded Favre to the Jets, they included a clause that stated they’d get something like three 1st rounders if Favre ended up with the Vikings.

  27. 27 CVD said at 5:49 PM on July 14th, 2011:

    i guess we have to figure out how many 43 teams would be interested in Fat Al. tommy, how many 43 one gap teams are there?

  28. 28 CVD said at 5:56 PM on July 14th, 2011:

    I would think the skins would almost have to give us F AL if we offered the best compensation. If they didn’t and we leaked what we offered, wouldn’t that make them look kind of weak? Since we just traded our probowl QB to them.

    I would say offer a conditional pick that could be up to a 3 if he plays a certain amount of snaps and could be at worst a 5. At least they will feel that if Al does do well with us they will get a good pick out of it, so the fans/media cant be too hard on the skins if he does do well here.

  29. 29 Cliff said at 7:45 PM on July 14th, 2011:

    I realized Mike Shanahan was doomed when he made the genius decision to turn a really good 4-3 defense in to a 3-4. Was Washington really that far from contending that he thought it wise to blow up the strongest part of the team? Before Shanahan arrived, I felt like the Redskins were a good OL away from at least being a Playoff contender.

    RE: Mathias Kiwanuka

    Kiwanuka sort of reminds me of Darryl Tapp.

  30. 30 ian no 2 said at 11:22 PM on July 14th, 2011:

    Good luck all of youse figuring out what the Skins would do it they were rational. Their lofty expectations fill the seats. Giving F Al to Philly would be conceding the season. Then again.. They actually behaved rationally on draft week. My point is that the Skins are going to do what the Skins are going to do, whatever that is. I’m willing to put money on it.

  31. 31 Kyle said at 8:12 AM on July 15th, 2011:

    Re Big Al, the Redskins hold the card. If they truly don’t want the Eagles to have Big Al, they can just trade him to some teams out of the division. No matter what we can offer, it won’t change that situation.

    Personally, I don’t see Big Al can be that much an upgrade to what we have in DT. Washburn being the best DT coach, he can turn our guys to perform at a high level, with or without Big Al.

  32. 32 D3Keith said at 6:09 PM on July 16th, 2011:

    I don’t mind making an aggressive offer for Al — say a 4, since Howie has proven he can manufacture a 4 (2011 draft), or draft guys in the 5th that they wanted in the 4th anyway (2010), I see that as basically taking a flyer.

    We don’t have to pretend like we’re not desperate, I don’t think, because we aren’t. Dixon/Bunk/Laws/Patt is plenty. Al is a luxury. Let’s ask early, and if the Skins give us the runaround, F ’em.