How bad is it for the NFC East if the Redskins sign Albert Haynesworth to a $100 million contract?
Cimorelli’s Question of the Day
This entry was posted in Questions of the Day and tagged albert haynesworth, NFL, redskins. Bookmark the permalink.
Not to underestimate him at all, but the Skins have been down the road of signing high-priced free-agents before, and it hasn’t
worked. Worse things have happened, but I’ll still hope that it doesn’t.
I think to answer that, you ask yourself would you want that contract for the Eagles. If you think that’s too much money to gamble with, then it’s good (or at least not bad) for the NFC East if the Redskins make the deal. But if you think he’s that unbelievable that you’d be jealous of the contract, then it’s bad news. I mean, if they overpay for a great player, yes we still have to play against him, but if it hurts them in the long run then that’s gonna help us.
and while it’s a very good question…my answer is no. I don’t think I’d want to take that much of a salary cap hit. Therefore, I don’t think it would be that bad for the NFC if the Skins chose to do so.
Well-said, Jay. I think I would have to agree. Plus, I kind of think giving a guy with Haynesworth’s work ethic history $100 million is a bit of a risk. Then again, I could also see him tormenting the Eagles backfield for the next 5 years. But, I think you’re right, $100 million for ANY defensive tackle is probably too much, which means, in the long-run, it’s bad for the Redskins and therefore, good for us
Hello mates, how is everything, and what you would
like to say on the topic of this post, in my view its
actually remarkable for me.
When I originally commented I clicked the “Notify me when new comments are added” checkbox and now each time a
comment is added I get three emails with the same comment.
Is there any way you can remove me from that service?
Cheers!