On the Blog: Briggs'n In the Riggin

[BurgundyNGold]

My thoughts on the Lance Briggs situation. And about Rip Taylor, among other things.

http://hailredskins.blogspot.com/2007/03/briggsn-in-riggin.html

[JoeJacksonTaylor28]

The video about Smoot is just awful... and that was just 1 game! Brought back horrible memories. Hopefully he works out fine, but I'm not a fan of smoot in DC again.

[danny's stogie]

Kenny "If Losing My Man In Coverage Is Wrong, I Don't Know How To Be" Wright

Subtle. I like it.


I'm just curious why you think signing Briggs and getting Dline help are two mutually exclusive events. If the choice here was trading for Briggs or trading for Tommie Harris of course they'd have to go with Harris, but I don't see any prime candidates out there to help the Dline. For now the best Dline option appears to be work with the guys they've got, and continue coaching up Golston and Mount, and to use the 1st rounder on the Dline, whether that pick be the 6th or 31st.

[BurgundyNGold]

Subtle. I like it.
I thought you'd like that, lol.

[danny's stogie]

I thought you'd like that, lol.

I still have no clue what that was about. I saw the blog and thought he was referring to Art Monk at first, then I put two and two together. Whatever it has to do with it's pretty unprofessional of JLC getting into a public spat with a message board operator.

I edited the above post and asked you a real question.

[BurgundyNGold]

Subtle. I like it.


I'm just curious why you think signing Briggs and getting Dline help are two mutually exclusive events. If the choice here was trading for Briggs or trading for Tommie Harris of course they'd have to go with Harris, but I don't see any prime candidates out there to help the Dline. For now the best Dline option appears to be work with the guys they've got, and continue coaching up Golston and Mount, and to use the 1st rounder on the Dline, whether that pick be the 6th or 31st.
For me, it's the same logic as if ew drafted Calvin Johnson at 6. He already *have* wide receivers. Sure, CJ is a great prospect and Briggs is a great player, but we don't need either. What we do need is a 2 gap DL. You don't get those at 31 very often. By then, you're usually dowen to the 5th or 6th DL off the board. It's usually not worth it to gamble on a DL there when the #1 or #2 OG could be sitting there. So I would guess that they would not go DL even then.

And I don't see how standing pat with the DL we have is even an option. The music has stopped and chairs are disappearing. If we trade for Briggs, we don't have a whole lot of sure-fire options for DL. Not like Anderson, Branch or Okoye.

[X-Factor13]

Good lord, that was hilarious!

:lol1:


The bit about Dan Snyder throwing money like confetti was great, and the oh-so-deserving nickname of our guy "if losing my man in coverage is wrong, then i don't know how to be" was priceless!

[danny's stogie]

For me, it's the same logic as if ew drafted Calvin Johnson at 6. He already *have* wide receivers. Sure, CJ is a great prospect and Briggs is a great player, but we don't need either. What we do need is a 2 gap DL. You don't get those at 31 very often. By then, you're usually dowen to the 5th or 6th DL off the board. It's usually not worth it to gamble on a DL there when the #1 or #2 OG could be sitting there. So I would guess that they would not go DL even then.

And I don't see how standing pat with the DL we have is even an option. The music has stopped and chairs are disappearing. If we trade for Briggs, we don't have a whole lot of sure-fire options for DL. Not like Anderson, Branch or Okoye.

So it comes down to your perception of the relative value of the big 3 (or 4) Dline prospects versus the Tylers, Harrels, and Pitcocks. Fair enough. That is basically mine (and others') Calvin Johnson argument, that his value doesn't sufficiently surpass those of higher need positions. But I am surprised at how much (relative) confidence you have in the linebacker corp.

[BurgundyNGold]

So it comes down to your perception of the relative value of the big 3 (or 4) Dline prospects versus the Tylers, Harrels, and Pitcocks. Fair enough. That is basically mine (and others') Calvin Johnson argument, that his value doesn't sufficiently surpass those of higher need positions. But I am surprised at how much (relative) confidence you have in the linebacker corp.
Fletcher and Washington are abover average starters. We traded up (giving up this year's #2) to get Macintosh last year, so he had better be worth it. And folks seem to think that Marshall will be fine on the outside for depth, so I'm willing to give him a try as the 4th LB.

If any of the major assumptions among these are wrong (Washington is hurt, Mac is a bust) then the Briggs trade starts to make sense. If not, then we're just buying groceries we don't need.

[shally]

My thoughts on the Lance Briggs situation. And about Rip Taylor, among other things.

http://hailredskins.blogspot.com/2007/03/briggsn-in-riggin.html

man, i wish i had a way with words like you... beautiful stuff

all i can say is that i have been saying since the end of the last deplorable season, that FIXING THE D LINE IS JOB 1.... nothing that has happened, and it is all good so far, has addressed that problem

FIXING THE D LINE IS STILL JOB 1...

and if they dont do it in the draft, it wont get done. because we passed on guys like dewayne white and grant wistrom and patrick kerney for a variety of reasons.. and it looks like we are gonna pass on ian scott.. and it cannot be about money because we are itching to pay it to briggs, who doesnt even play d line when i last checked.

yes, we could still use the detritus from the briggs trade (if there is any) to select a d lineman at 31.. and yes, we could send the same scouts that found golston and montgomery (if snyder has not s***-canned the lot by then)
to find another second day pair for us this draft-- if we dont trade those picks away.. but if we dont fix the d line, we will be committing to a path that sounds like... umm.. repeating the same question and hoping to get a different answer this time.. and you know what that is...

[dogfight6]

Well written and insightfull. I enjoyed your blog.

[BIGSEF3]

Great writeup, BNG! I say, "(Forget) Martha Stewart" and wear the puffy shirt anyways!

[danny's stogie]

man, i wish i had a way with words like you... beautiful stuff

all i can say is that i have been saying since the end of the last deplorable season, that FIXING THE D LINE IS JOB 1.... nothing that has happened, and it is all good so far, has addressed that problem

FIXING THE D LINE IS STILL JOB 1...

and if they dont do it in the draft, it wont get done. because we passed on guys like dewayne white and grant wistrom and patrick kerney for a variety of reasons.. and it looks like we are gonna pass on ian scott.. and it cannot be about money because we are itching to pay it to briggs, who doesnt even play d line when i last checked.

yes, we could still use the detritus from the briggs trade (if there is any) to select a d lineman at 31.. and yes, we could send the same scouts that found golston and montgomery (if snyder has not s***-canned the lot by then)
to find another second day pair for us this draft-- if we dont trade those picks away.. but if we dont fix the d line, we will be committing to a path that sounds like... umm.. repeating the same question and hoping to get a different answer this time.. and you know what that is...

When Ian Scott is the most sought after DT FA it says something. If the Skins were to have signed him they would have invested a fair amount of cash in a DT I'm not even sure would start. As for Kerney and Winstrom, I'm really happy they passed on those two. They're both on the downside of their career. Kerney is a total waste against the run and is much better playing RDE, although I think moving him back to RDE would show his age. Winstrom is also on the downside of his career and hasn't had a good season in several years. White, maybe, but he got a bigger contract than I think any of us would have been happy with.

Point is, you can't fix something if the hardware store is closed and you can't buy the tools. I'm glad the FO showed restraint and didn't sign these guys, that would have been throwing money at crap and hoping it sticks. I'd rather they be patient and wait till the draft or till a better option becomes available to start working on the Dline.

[RedskinsDave]

I still have no clue what that was about. I saw the blog and thought he was referring to Art Monk at first, then I put two and two together. Whatever it has to do with it's pretty unprofessional of JLC getting into a public spat with a message board operator.

I edited the above post and asked you a real question.

He's hardly just a "message board operator". It's the Redskins own board with the Redskins own lackeys who get the Redskins own access. Calling out homer central wasn't unprofessional, it needed to be done.

[danny's stogie]

He's hardly just a "message board operator". It's the Redskins own board with the Redskins own lackeys who get the Redskins own access. Calling out homer central wasn't unprofessional, it needed to be done.

I don't know, a pot shot directed at an individual is the wrong way to go about it. A blog entry about how that board functions would have been a more tactful route than a snide remark like that if this was just an attempt to expose them as sycophants.

[RedskinsDave]

I don't know, a pot shot directed at an individual is the wrong way to go about it. A blog entry about how that board functions would have been a more tactful route than a snide remark like that if this was just an attempt to expose them as sycophants.

It was aimed at the king of the sycophants. Danny Snyder can do now wrong (all evidence to the contrary aside). I am quite sure the first shot was made by Mr. Apologist anyways and JLC was probably just responsing in kind.

[akhhorus]

It was aimed at the king of the sycophants. Danny Snyder can do now wrong (all evidence to the contrary aside). I am quite sure the first shot was made by Mr. Apologist anyways and JLC was probably just responsing in kind.

The Apologencia started it with their slamming of JLC about reporting the Coles thing in Jan 05. Oddly enough he never got a mea culpa from them when they accused him of making stuff up.

[CNYSkinFan]

Nice write up BNG...too much man love for me though. Between Denver's ill fated intentions with us and Greg Williams whip creme fetish I think you should think about writing for Bravo :)

[smoak]

Great article! I really disagree with this though:
He is now pissing and moaning about only gettig paid the average of the top 5 folks in his position this upcoming season and demanding to be traded. Demanding? Who is this guy? Napoleon?

Briggs played through his undervalued contract in good faith and was a "good soldier" the entire time. Chicago is a bunch of penny pinching bastards.

[Keino]

Can you guys explain the JLC thing you are talking about? I have no idea what you guys are talking about.

Oh and Smoak, I disagree with that blurb too. It goes back to Market value and loyalty for me. People see $7 Million and think about the $60 K they make and say "Whats he complaining about?". Well in a sport where your career can end in a single instant and the length of your career will be a decade if you are one of the lucky ones, and the market is willing to pay you more than 2X what your current team is paying you by invoking the Franchise tag, you have every right to be disgruntled in that situation.

If the firm accross town offered to double your salary, you would be pissed if your current employer invoked some industry rule that prevented you from making double your current salary....especially if you spent the previous 2 years grossly underpaid whle outperforming everyone in your company.

[danny's stogie]

Can you guys explain the JLC thing you are talking about? I have no idea what you guys are talking about.

Oh and Smoak, I disagree with that blurb too. It goes back to Market value and loyalty for me. People see $7 Million and think about the $60 K they make and say "Whats he complaining about?". Well in a sport where your career can end in a single instant and the length of your career will be a decade if you are one of the lucky ones, and the market is willing to pay you more than 2X what your current team is paying you by invoking the Franchise tag, you have every right to be disgruntled in that situation.

If the firm accross town offered to double your salary, you would be pissed if your current employer invoked some industry rule that prevented you from making double your current salary....especially if you spent the previous 2 years grossly underpaid whle outperforming everyone in your company.

Agreed. Have you ever heard about a player being happy that they were franchised?

[CNYSkinFan]

Great article! I really disagree with this though:


Briggs played through his undervalued contract in good faith and was a "good soldier" the entire time. Chicago is a bunch of penny pinching bastards.
That is the only thing about Briggs I have agreed with on this baord. The fact that Chicago is stiffing him after all this time is amazing. Chicago is taking a very short term approach here. They will pay for it with their future free agents.

[smoak]

That is the only thing about Briggs I have agreed with on this baord. The fact that Chicago is stiffing him after all this time is amazing. Chicago is taking a very short term approach here. They will pay for it with their future free agents.

Not just players... Look how they treated Lovie and Rivera.

[Carmelo]

My thoughts on the Lance Briggs situation. And about Rip Taylor, among other things.

http://hailredskins.blogspot.com/2007/03/briggsn-in-riggin.html
the biggest thing I agree with is this: Save the draft position trades until draft day when teams are desperate. Wait until you're on the clock to wheel and deal. Yes, get all your ducks lined up... but don't start shooting them until draft day. Who knows who will slide down unexpectedly and what team will be desperate to move up and get them.

[smoak]

Can you guys explain the JLC thing you are talking about? I have no idea what you guys are talking about.

Oh and Smoak, I disagree with that blurb too. It goes back to Market value and loyalty for me. People see $7 Million and think about the $60 K they make and say "Whats he complaining about?". Well in a sport where your career can end in a single instant and the length of your career will be a decade if you are one of the lucky ones, and the market is willing to pay you more than 2X what your current team is paying you by invoking the Franchise tag, you have every right to be disgruntled in that situation.

If the firm accross town offered to double your salary, you would be pissed if your current employer invoked some industry rule that prevented you from making double your current salary....especially if you spent the previous 2 years grossly underpaid whle outperforming everyone in your company.

Yeah, I am generally an "owners guy" b/c I think the players these days are lacking, but this isn't a holdout. Briggs just doesn't want to play under the franchise tag which is understandable. They need to eliminate that and make some other incentive to keep players.

[danny's stogie]

Yeah, I am generally an "owners guy" b/c I think the players these days are lacking, but this isn't a holdout. Briggs just doesn't want to play under the franchise tag which is understandable. They need to eliminate that and make some other incentive to keep players.

They should have a Larry Bird exemption type thing. Maybe two contracts per team that don't count against the salary cap.

[smoak]

They should have a Larry Bird exemption type thing. Maybe two contracts per team that don't count against the salary cap.

Or a scale where the longer you stay with a team, the less you count against the cap... But the franchise tag no longer worrks b/c the bonuses are too large.

[CNYSkinFan]

Or a scale where the longer you stay with a team, the less you count against the cap... But the franchise tag no longer worrks b/c the bonuses are too large.
and conceivably no player is worth two 1st rounders anymore. IU have never heard of a franchise player being signed away without any negotiating on teams with compensation. The Franchise was meant for a team to keep a player they wanted to promote continuity, not using it as a negotiating tooll in contracts.

[smoak]

and conceivably no player is worth two 1st rounders anymore. IU have never heard of a franchise player being signed away without any negotiating on teams with compensation. The Franchise was meant for a team to keep a player they wanted to promote continuity, not using it as a negotiating tooll in contracts.

Well sometimes teams revoke the tag... It happened with Corey Simon.

[BurgundyNGold]

When Ian Scott is the most sought after DT FA it says something. If the Skins were to have signed him they would have invested a fair amount of cash in a DT I'm not even sure would start. As for Kerney and Winstrom, I'm really happy they passed on those two. They're both on the downside of their career. Kerney is a total waste against the run and is much better playing RDE, although I think moving him back to RDE would show his age. Winstrom is also on the downside of his career and hasn't had a good season in several years. White, maybe, but he got a bigger contract than I think any of us would have been happy with.

Point is, you can't fix something if the hardware store is closed and you can't buy the tools. I'm glad the FO showed restraint and didn't sign these guys, that would have been throwing money at crap and hoping it sticks. I'd rather they be patient and wait till the draft or till a better option becomes available to start working on the Dline.
I agree 100%. The investment/return on Scott would not be proportionate. However, the good thing about an early draft pick is that you can flip the value proposition to your favor for 4 or 5 years should you find a keeper.

[BurgundyNGold]

Great article! I really disagree with this though:


Briggs played through his undervalued contract in good faith and was a "good soldier" the entire time. Chicago is a bunch of penny pinching bastards.
The man is under contract and there is a right way and a wrong way to do everything. Briggs' antics seem to be the Brandon Lloyd, me-first, crybaby way. I think that is a negative against an otherwise very good talent.

[BurgundyNGold]

Yeah, I am generally an "owners guy" b/c I think the players these days are lacking, but this isn't a holdout. Briggs just doesn't want to play under the franchise tag which is understandable. They need to eliminate that and make some other incentive to keep players.
I think the franschise tag designation is perfectly fine, although it could be tweaked. The guy makes the average of the top 5 at his position. Maybe that could be the average of the top 3. And maybe it's a one year thing and if he is tagged the next year he makes what the top 1 gets plus 10% or something.

But I don't want my team losing its top players for nothing. Basketball and baseball have that and the turnover rates in those sports are unbearable for the average would-be fan.

[danny's stogie]

I think the franschise tag designation is perfectly fine, although it could be tweaked. The guy makes the average of the top 5 at his position. Maybe that could be the average of the top 3. And maybe it's a one year thing and if he is tagged the next year he makes what the top 1 gets plus 10% or something.

But I don't want my team losing its top players for nothing. Basketball and baseball have that and the turnover rates in those sports are unbearable for the average would-be fan.

Baseball does have that turnover problem, but in basketball a team can keep its top players because the Larry Bird exemption allows a team to exceed the salary cap to sign their own. I think the issue with the franchise tag is that it's just a one year thing and in a sport where injury rates are so high and players' careers can shatter in a second, the signing bonus money of a long-term deal is where it's at.

[akhhorus]

The man is under contract and there is a right way and a wrong way to do everything. Briggs' antics seem to be the Brandon Lloyd, me-first, crybaby way. I think that is a negative against an otherwise very good talent.

How? Briggs didn't start giving interviews until Angelo started the public fight first by saying that there's no way Briggs would get a long term deal and wouldn't get dealt.

[BurgundyNGold]

Baseball does have that turnover problem, but in basketball a team can keep its top players because the Larry Bird exemption allows a team to exceed the salary cap to sign their own. I think the issue with the franchise tag is that it's just a one year thing and in a sport where injury rates are so high and players' careers can shatter in a second, the signing bonus money of a long-term deal is where it's at.
Then they should do a Sterling Sharpe and get an insurance policy and ask the team to pay for it as part of the franchise deal. Problem solved. ;)

And once you introduce the Larry Bird exemption, you effectively make the cap a soft cap. That's an even worse idea than just dropping the franchise designation. The cap affects the whole team where the tage only affects one player, and more his ego than his wallet at that.

[guinness4health]

Finally, when Gibbs and Williams came to DC in 2004, you could ask people on this board what the Redskins needed and, coming in a close second to a Gator enima, would probably have been a desire for some serious defensive line help. Yet, Williams did nothing.

Are you seriously....we brought in Griffin (would was an absolute beast that got robbed of a pro-bowl birth).....Salavea (who provided 2 solid years of run stuffing).....and we brought in Daniels (who struggled this first year with injuries but had eight sacks).....not to mention the no name guys of evans, warner, and clemons (who was a linebacker who was used as a rush end on third down)....

what more do you want than adding 3 starters???

like it or not williams defense is predicated on stopping the run....that being said we will still be able to pick up a defensive tackle at the end of the first round with this trade and be in a good position to stop the run....

Briggs would help with the pass rush not to mention his strengths vs. the running game (he is like having the strengths of Lavar without the freelancing)... (a healthy marcus is going to help that pass rush as well...*knock on wood)....but what can't be lost is the potential impact on our pass rush that stopping the run on first and second down will have...

it is much easier to rush the quarterback on 3 and long instead of 3 and short (which we seemed to be faced with the majority of the season last year)

[danny's stogie]

Then they should do a Sterling Sharpe and get an insurance policy and ask the team to pay for it as part of the franchise deal. Problem solved. ;)

And once you introduce the Larry Bird exemption, you effectively make the cap a soft cap. That's an even worse idea than just dropping the franchise designation. The cap affects the whole team where the tage only affects one player, and more his ego than his wallet at that.

I think a lot of elite college players purchase insurance on their body, not sure how it works for NFL players, I only know that the NFL and the NFLPA has a poor record taking care of its ex-members.

What negative effect would a Larry Bird exemption have on the rest of the players?

[BurgundyNGold]

I think a lot of elite college players purchase insurance on their body, not sure how it works for NFL players, I only know that the NFL and the NFLPA has a poor record taking care of its ex-members.

What negative effect would a Larry Bird exemption have on the rest of the players?
Circumventing the cap for one thing. Why should one team have one cap number and another have a different number? And what about the teams that will always sign to exceed the cap (Redskins, Dallass) and the teams that won't (Pittsburg, Arizona)?

Under a soft cap, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That is decidedly NOT what the NFL is all about and precisely why the NFL has been the most successful sports league in the US for the past 20 years or more.

[guinness4health]

That is the only thing about Briggs I have agreed with on this baord. The fact that Chicago is stiffing him after all this time is amazing. Chicago is taking a very short term approach here. They will pay for it with their future free agents.

which just makes their statement that they are afraid that by trading briggs they are setting a precedent for disgruntled players and their agents to force their way out of town.....talk about spin!?!?!?!

Guess what jerry you treating you top players (and coaches) like crap is whats going to make it hard to resign your upcoming free agents.....

Briggs is getting screwed (no long term negotiations...aside from one laughable below market offer, I don't think we have to go in to this one anyone then it already has been talked about)....

talking about cutting Mike Brown because you don't want to pay him 2.5 million this year (injury or not how many pro-bowls has this guy made, and how long has be been one of your team leaders)....

showing ron rivera the door....

trading away your best runner (for next to nothing), because he wanted to by the guy and you wanted to prove that drafting benson was not a mistake.....

nearly forcing Lovie one of the best young coaches in the league to leave because you wanted to pay him like it was 1985?!?!?!?!

they might do a good job of drafting but if they don't starting paying people what they deserve then they are going to have guys running from this organization as fast as they can....which would be ridiculous considering what a huge market Chicago is....

[Keino]

The man is under contract and there is a right way and a wrong way to do everything. Briggs' antics seem to be the Brandon Lloyd, me-first, crybaby way. I think that is a negative against an otherwise very good talent.


Actually the man is not under contract. He honored the terms of his prior contract which grossly underpaid him with the idea that the team would reward that loyalty. So far the team has done anything but, given that he would command $15-20 Million guaranteed this year.

[skinfan43]

Actually the man is not under contract. He honored the terms of his prior contract which grossly underpaid him with the idea that the team would reward that loyalty. So far the team has done anything but, given that he would command $15-20 Million guaranteed this year.
Clever writeup BNG, good stuff!
Hey K, quick question for you: Does it hurt or help Briggs' value if he isn't dealt to us and voluntarily sits out the first 10 games next season, as he seems prepared to do?

[bergiemoore]

Clever writeup BNG, good stuff!
Hey K, quick question for you: Does it hurt or help Briggs' value if he isn't dealt to us and voluntarily sits out the first 10 games next season, as he seems prepared to do?

I don't think it will hurt him too much. There is plenty of film that shows how good this guy is. If this had been the only year that he showed anything, I'd say it hurts, but nah. This guys for real, and will get his money one way or another, provided he doesn't get injured.

[Keino]

Clever writeup BNG, good stuff!
Hey K, quick question for you: Does it hurt or help Briggs' value if he isn't dealt to us and voluntarily sits out the first 10 games next season, as he seems prepared to do?


My opinion is that it will not hurt his ability to command a high dollar contract next year. On the other hand, I think that scenario would hurt Chicago, because they have to keep the $7.2 Mill available under the cap as long as the tender is on the table.

[shally]

My opinion is that it will not hurt his ability to command a high dollar contract next year. On the other hand, I think that scenario would hurt Chicago, because they have to keep the $7.2 Mill available under the cap as long as the tender is on the table.

it ties them to him.. if they remove the tender then they get nothing for him.
so it ties up their money.
then again, what would be the likelihood that they would spend that money after the 6th or 10th game ? pretty low

[smoak]

The man is under contract and there is a right way and a wrong way to do everything. Briggs' antics seem to be the Brandon Lloyd, me-first, crybaby way. I think that is a negative against an otherwise very good talent.

I don't see that at all... I see a team player all the way. He could have held out last season and jeopardized their SB run. If I tried to deprive you of $10-15MM that you earned you would be mad right? I think he is just tired of dealing with a cheapskate franchise. They ran Rivera out of town... they almost lost Lovie Smith. Honestly, if I was a Bears fan I would be livid at the franchise.

And I am usually the most anti-player person you'll ever meet.

[shally]

I think the franschise tag designation is perfectly fine, although it could be tweaked. The guy makes the average of the top 5 at his position. Maybe that could be the average of the top 3. And maybe it's a one year thing and if he is tagged the next year he makes what the top 1 gets plus 10% or something.

But I don't want my team losing its top players for nothing. Basketball and baseball have that and the turnover rates in those sports are unbearable for the average would-be fan.

both basketball and baseball contracts are for the life of the deal.. and the nba has exemptions to allow teams to try and keep their own best players

baseball is the worst of all worlds with the haves and havenots demarkated with little hope of changing

[danny's stogie]

both basketball and baseball contracts are for the life of the deal.. and the nba has exemptions to allow teams to try and keep their own best players

baseball is the worst of all worlds with the haves and havenots demarkated with little hope of changing

Honestly, I think if the MLB benefited from higher parity they'd find a way to implement it. Right now they draw significantly better ratings when the big market teams do well. A league without the Red Sox, Dodgers, Yanks, and Cubs being competitive is a league that won't draw casual fan interest.

[danny's stogie]

Circumventing the cap for one thing. Why should one team have one cap number and another have a different number? And what about the teams that will always sign to exceed the cap (Redskins, Dallass) and the teams that won't (Pittsburg, Arizona)?

Under a soft cap, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That is decidedly NOT what the NFL is all about and precisely why the NFL has been the most successful sports league in the US for the past 20 years or more.

So a salary cap that has been in existence for a little over a decade is what has driven the sport for over 20 years?

[RedskinsDave]

Honestly, I think if the MLB benefited from higher parity they'd find a way to implement it. Right now they draw significantly better ratings when the big market teams do well. A league without the Red Sox, Dodgers, Yanks, and Cubs being competitive is a league that won't draw casual fan interest.

Nevermind the fact that the World Series has seen more parity in the last 10 years than the Super Bowl too.

[danny's stogie]

Nevermind the fact that the World Series has seen more parity in the last 10 years than the Super Bowl too.

Parity in the NFL has had the unintended consequence of making team play way too highly correlated with QB play. A team with a good QB basically holds all the cards nowadays.

[shally]

Honestly, I think if the MLB benefited from higher parity they'd find a way to implement it. Right now they draw significantly better ratings when the big market teams do well. A league without the Red Sox, Dodgers, Yanks, and Cubs being competitive is a league that won't draw casual fan interest.

i am sorry, but i grew up a washington senator's fan..i cannot tell you the agony of knowing the team was never going to be competitve with the orioles, much less the yankees..

that is one thing the nfl got right..parity and the ability that a team can come from worst to first in a short time..
because of the long lag time it takes to develop players in the farm system, it is tough for a team to get systematically better, but it is still a shame what happens to fans of the pirates every year..

maybe MLB, inc is better off, but i think that a majority of baseball fans are not.. unless you simply get your jollies hating the yanks or braves

[shally]

Nevermind the fact that the World Series has seen more parity in the last 10 years than the Super Bowl too.

that is not entirely true.. there are teams that will never sniff the world series again in all likelihood

and as soon as they develop a prime player, they are going to watch him be wooed away by the yanks or mets or...

and in truth, i believe you feel the way you do because you are a yankee fan. were you a pirate fan or a brewer fan you might feel otherwise

[danny's stogie]

i am sorry, but i grew up a washington senator's fan..i cannot tell you the agony of knowing the team was never going to be competitve with the orioles, much less the yankees..

that is one thing the nfl got right..parity and the ability that a team can come from worst to first in a short time..
because of the long lag time it takes to develop players in the farm system, it is tough for a team to get systematically better, but it is still a shame what happens to fans of the pirates every year..

maybe MLB, inc is better off, but i think that a majority of baseball fans are not.. unless you simply get your jollies hating the yanks or braves

For intrinsic value, yes, it's nice if the Pirates can win, but realistically, who besides the diehards and fans in those small markets would watch a Pirates/Royals World Series?

[shally]

For intrinsic value, yes, it's nice if the Pirates can win, but realistically, who besides the diehards and fans in those small markets would watch a Pirates/Royals World Series?

i would rather watch that series than a met/yankee series.. and beyond new jersey most of the nation would, i bet

and if you truly felt that way, then perhaps the bills and saints should be banned from the superbowl

and the answer would then be to contract baseball to 6 to 10 teams and let them go at it every year.

[danny's stogie]

i would rather watch that series than a met/yankee series.. and beyond new jersey most of the nation would, i bet

and if you truly felt that way, then perhaps the bills and saints should be banned from the superbowl

and the answer would then be to contract baseball to 6 to 10 teams and let them go at it every year.

TV ratings suggest you're one of the few that feels that way.

Maybe they should contract teams, but why would they? The small market teams profit off the revenue they receive when the big name teams come to down. Go to any Sox or Yankee away game and you'll see that they cause a huge attendence boost. Heck, it's why Angelos never bothers trying to compete, he makes more money letting Baltimore be a shuttle town for the Yanks and Sox.

[Keino]

Dave are you saying that MLB has it figured out moreso than the NFL?

[shally]

TV ratings suggest you're one of the few that feels that way.

Maybe they should contract teams, but why would they? The small market teams profit off the revenue they receive when the big name teams come to down. Go to any Sox or Yankee away game and you'll see that they cause a huge attendence boost. Heck, it's why Angelos never bothers trying to compete, he makes more money letting Baltimore be a shuttle town for the Yanks and Sox.

i understand that the dollar rules.. but it is corrosive to the integrity of the sport to have the same haves and have nots every year... and not due to mismanagement but to revenue

i went to see opponent teams when i was a a kid so i understand that

part of the reason the yankees and sox have such a fan base is because they win all the time. and that creates a lot more loyal and interested fan base over the years.. the more you appear in post season, the more TV loyalty you will generate

[RedskinsDave]

The small market teams in baseball are content to spend very little and take their revenue sharing. Football has a minimum amount that has to be spent on players salaries. In baseball, a billionaire like Glass (KC) can take money from Steinbrenner and claim he is spending it in developing players. There's no way to tell. Baseball would be "fixed" if the small teams really gave a crap about winning.

Also, no one would watch that Pirates-Royals series at all.

[Keino]

The small market teams in baseball are content to spend very little and take their revenue sharing. Football has a minimum amount that has to be spent on players salaries. In baseball, a billionaire like Glass (KC) can take money from Steinbrenner and claim he is spending it in developing players. There's no way to tell. Baseball would be "fixed" if the small teams really gave a crap about winning.

Also, no one would watch that Pirates-Royals series at all.


How do you explain teams like Minnesota and Oakland who seem to be in the Playoffs every year?

[RedskinsDave]

Dave are you saying that MLB has it figured out moreso than the NFL?

No, I'm saying it's a flawed argument.

[shally]

The small market teams in baseball are content to spend very little and take their revenue sharing. Football has a minimum amount that has to be spent on players salaries. In baseball, a billionaire like Glass (KC) can take money from Steinbrenner and claim he is spending it in developing players. There's no way to tell. Baseball would be "fixed" if the small teams really gave a crap about winning.

Also, no one would watch that Pirates-Royals series at all.

i think the last time the minnesota twins were inthe world series, it generated a lot of interest.. i do not have the tv ratings, but as i recall it was an interesting and well followed series

and people follow the steelers across the country, so why would they not follow the pirates in a world series??

[danny's stogie]

i understand that the dollar rules.. but it is corrosive to the integrity of the sport to have the same haves and have nots every year... and not due to mismanagement but to revenue
i went to see opponent teams when i was a a kid so i understand that



Maybe the NFL should keep the current arrangement and stick Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, and Tom Brady on different teams every season so that other cities would have a chance for once.

part of the reason the yankees and sox have such a fan base is because they win all the time. and that creates a lot more loyal and interested fan base over the years.. the more you appear in post season, the more TV loyalty you will generate

Are you saying that it's a bad thing that casual fans get drawn into the sport by these two teams and eventually become loyal fans because of that?

[RedskinsDave]

i think the last time the minnesota twins were inthe world series, it generated a lot of interest.. i do not have the tv ratings, but as i recall it was an interesting and well followed series

and people follow the steelers across the country, so why would they not follow the pirates in a world series??

Steelers are to the Pirates what the Redskins are to the Nationals.

[shally]

Maybe the NFL should keep the current arrangement and stick Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, and Tom Brady on different teams every season so that other cities would have a chance for once.



Are you saying that it's a bad thing that casual fans get drawn into the sport by these two teams and eventually become loyal fans because of that?

i am saying that the same casual fans would be drawn to the steelers (i believe they are), so there is not a reason why a small market team could not draw interest

the saints are the smallest market by far and yet last year there was tremendous interest in them

as for peyton or brady, they were drafted fairly and not on the basis of the size of the market, otherwise indy would never have a shot.. and the parity of the system is what GAVE indy their shot in the first place

[shally]

Steelers are to the Pirates what the Redskins are to the Nationals.


but i believe that the nationals have a real chance (if they are managed well)
because of the size of the DC market.. let them finish in the thick of the pennant race and they will draw very well

and still the steelers play in a very small market. but before chuck noll, they drew terribly. it is all about winning.. if you never win, you are never going to draw

[RedskinsDave]

but i believe that the nationals have a real chance (if they are managed well)
because of the size of the DC market.. let them finish in the thick of the pennant race and they will draw very well

They will but they'd be a dud as far a tv ratings were concerned if they made the Series.

[shally]

They will but they'd be a dud as far a tv ratings were concerned if they made the Series.

how do we even know that ? it is being predicated upon their low ratings generated as a losing team

i think they would be a tremendous interest story if they made it to the series.
and if they were very competitve over a series of years, i think they would develop a following around the country as well..winning breeds interest.
why else would people in other areas wear green bay uni's ?

[HAWGZHEAD]

the saints are the smallest market by far and yet last year there was tremendous interest in them
The Saints got so much support last year for many reasons. 1) The struggling underdog battling to rise from the ashes 2) The owner wanting to move the team in times of adversity 3) An accomplished QB coming of a good season coming to town and 4) A possible superstar rookie RB. All those and Americas love of the underdog took them a long way.

[shally]

The Saints got so much support last year for many reasons. 1) The struggling underdog battling to rise from the ashes 2) The owner wanting to move the team in times of adversity 3) An accomplished QB coming of a good season coming to town and 4) A possible superstar rookie RB. All those and Americas love of the underdog took them a long way.

as would they take to the pirates or royals or brewers

it doesnt have to be set up so that the yanks, sox, braves...dominate every year

got to run, guys..later...the crickets will have to sub for my posts for a while

[HAWGZHEAD]

as would they take to the pirates or royals or brewers

it doesnt have to be set up so that the yanks, sox, braves...dominate every year

got to run, guys..later...the crickets will have to sub for my posts for a whileJust plain sucking isn't enough anymore for America lol. You need some reality TV type drama mixed in there.

[BurgundyNGold]

I don't see that at all... I see a team player all the way. He could have held out last season and jeopardized their SB run. If I tried to deprive you of $10-15MM that you earned you would be mad right? I think he is just tired of dealing with a cheapskate franchise. They ran Rivera out of town... they almost lost Lovie Smith. Honestly, if I was a Bears fan I would be livid at the franchise.

And I am usually the most anti-player person you'll ever meet.
So was he a team player when he was holding out of camp BEFORE last season while he was under contract?

And why would you be livid at a franchise that made the Superbowl last year? Cheap or not they have been to 1 more Superbowl than we have in the last 15 years and just as many as the Iggles, another "cheap" franchise. Oh and Pittsburgh has made the Superbowl, what 3 times in the last 15 years? Cheap has nothing to do with success. Sure, we can write him a check, he'll be fat and happy and we'll still not make the playoffs. All things being equal, I'd rather be cheap and successful.

[BIGSEF3]

So was he a team player when he was holding out of camp BEFORE last season while he was under contract?

And why would you be livid at a franchise that made the Superbowl last year? Cheap or not they have been to 1 more Superbowl than we have in the last 15 years and just as many as the Iggles, another "cheap" franchise. Oh and Pittsburgh has made the Superbowl, what 3 times in the last 15 years? Cheap has nothing to do with success. Sure, we can write him a check, he'll be fat and happy and we'll still not make the playoffs. All things being equal, I'd rather be cheap and successful.

i agree there. a team that is "cheap" is much more careful with its money and is going to make very wise investments. we have an owner with whom money is no object. we throw money at players we dont even really need just because we can. as a result, we get some really good players, but we get alot of busts too. since we have to deal with the ramifications of cutting/trading those players, we are always in a "bind" and our options are limited, especially considering we give up draft picks so that we can overpay guys we may not even really need. as a consequence, teams like the eagles and bears can sit happy with a full set of draft picks and 20Million+ in salary cap space and have the ability to pretty much do whatever they want. The bears can let briggs walk if they want, but they are smart enough to draft a guy just as good as he is, to replace them. this team puts too high a stock on veteran players who have "proven themselves" by playing on teams where they were surrounded by talent on the field and in the coaching staff. I mean, do you really think we would have signed patten and fauria if they had come from the lions and not the patriots?

[Keino]

So was he a team player when he was holding out of camp BEFORE last season while he was under contract?

And why would you be livid at a franchise that made the Superbowl last year? Cheap or not they have been to 1 more Superbowl than we have in the last 15 years and just as many as the Iggles, another "cheap" franchise. Oh and Pittsburgh has made the Superbowl, what 3 times in the last 15 years? Cheap has nothing to do with success. Sure, we can write him a check, he'll be fat and happy and we'll still not make the playoffs. All things being equal, I'd rather be cheap and successful.


He didn't hold out last year.

[urobm]

The video about Smoot is just awful... and that was just 1 game! Brought back horrible memories. Hopefully he works out fine, but I'm not a fan of smoot in DC again.

Smoot is a good CB, he left for the wrong reasons his first time around and he ended up regretting it. I think he will return to form, the old SMOOOOT that we knew and grew to love.

[urobm]

Fletcher and Washington are abover average starters. We traded up (giving up this year's #2) to get Macintosh last year, so he had better be worth it. And folks seem to think that Marshall will be fine on the outside for depth, so I'm willing to give him a try as the 4th LB.

If any of the major assumptions among these are wrong (Washington is hurt, Mac is a bust) then the Briggs trade starts to make sense. If not, then we're just buying groceries we don't need.


Exactly well put, I hope Im wrong but maybe Washington's injury is allot more serious than we think because for some reason we are very adamant about acquiring Briggs who would be an otherwise luxury acquisition if all our LBs aree healthy. We gave up so much to Rocky (in my opinion too much), so why not give him a shot. He looked pretty good in the last 2 games of the season.

[BurgundyNGold]

He didn't hold out last year.
No, you are correct. He didn't hold out. But he did not attend the Bears summer practices because he was unhappy with his contract and earned a demotion as a result.

[smoak]

The small market teams in baseball are content to spend very little and take their revenue sharing. Football has a minimum amount that has to be spent on players salaries. In baseball, a billionaire like Glass (KC) can take money from Steinbrenner and claim he is spending it in developing players. There's no way to tell. Baseball would be "fixed" if the small teams really gave a crap about winning.

Also, no one would watch that Pirates-Royals series at all.

A sure sign that a league is in need of contraction. Not tomention that sports fans in general are morons... Who cares where the team plays> Great players and matchups make for great sports/entertainment. I heard this argument when LeBron came into the NBA... But to me it seems that Cleveland is a draw now BECAUSE of him. I might be wrong though b/c I am far from an NBA fan.

[smoak]

No, you are correct. He didn't hold out. But he did not attend the Bears summer practices because he was unhappy with his contract and earned a demotion as a result.

A bunch of our guys are skipping OTAs this year.

So was he a team player when he was holding out of camp BEFORE last season while he was under contract?

And why would you be livid at a franchise that made the Superbowl last year? Cheap or not they have been to 1 more Superbowl than we have in the last 15 years and just as many as the Iggles, another "cheap" franchise. Oh and Pittsburgh has made the Superbowl, what 3 times in the last 15 years? Cheap has nothing to do with success. Sure, we can write him a check, he'll be fat and happy and we'll still not make the playoffs. All things being equal, I'd rather be cheap and successful.

I truly believe you wouldn't be as anti-Briggs had the rumored not been circulated. You want a reason to dislike the guy, but the fact is that he did what TO, Eli, Elway, Seymour, Abraham, Hines Ward, and COUNTLESS others could not do.... And that is he was able to "feed his family" on the contract he signed. He manned up and honored the deal he signed, and for that I respect him. Holding out of "team activities" doesn't bother me and neither does his refusal to sign the franchise tag contract. It is his right/choice.

Re: the Bears, you are clouded by the recent disappointment of the Redskins. While I don't think our way is right, I promise you people would call for blood if we went to a SuperBowl and Danny decided to pinch pennies and not re-sign a guy who many considered the MVP of the defense. NFL Network interviewed a media guy (forget who) about Briggs and he said that he absolutely carried that team in the playoffs... I frankly didn't pay attention enough to comment.

[redskin_rich]

A bunch of our guys are skipping OTAs this year.


Who? And where did you read that?
I think you are confusing that some guys that live in other towns were given permission to workout on their own and not at Redskins park this offseason. They are still expected at OTA's though.

[smoak]

Who? And where did you read that?
I think you are confusing that some guys that live in other towns were given permission to workout on their own and not at Redskins park this offseason. They are still expected at OTA's though.

Aren't "workouts" considered OTAs as well? I didn't hear anyone was missign practices, but yeah as you said, a bunch are working out on their own time and place.

[shally]

Aren't "workouts" considered OTAs as well? I didn't hear anyone was missign practices, but yeah as you said, a bunch are working out on their own time and place.

i think there is a difference between the OTA's which are "organized" activities that go for about 2 weeks at a time, and the individual work outs the players are supposed to be doing

and then there are the informal activities that go on between guys like campbell and his receivers. he throws to them constantly working on timing

[BurgundyNGold]

A bunch of our guys are skipping OTAs this year.
More reason to reward him with a healthy new contract, no? If you're building a "team", why knowlingly go out and get a guy who's more interested in himself than the team? You might as well just go out and get Brandon Llo... oh, wait.

I truly believe you wouldn't be as anti-Briggs had the rumored not been circulated. You want a reason to dislike the guy, but the fact is that he did what TO, Eli, Elway, Seymour, Abraham, Hines Ward, and COUNTLESS others could not do.... And that is he was able to "feed his family" on the contract he signed. He manned up and honored the deal he signed, and for that I respect him. Holding out of "team activities" doesn't bother me and neither does his refusal to sign the franchise tag contract. It is his right/choice.
You are 100% correct in that before the rumors started circulating about us giving up out #6 pick for a player we don't need, I had no need to go and find out the back story on Briggs. Having done that, and given our current LB situation, I don't like the idea of getting him. We don't NEED him. Add in his demonstrated willingness to not participate in OTAs (this is HUGE with Gibbs) and current verbalized willingness to hold out 10 games next year because getting paid $7+M isn't enough, well, I guess I am a bit biased. I don't want him.

Re: the Bears, you are clouded by the recent disappointment of the Redskins. While I don't think our way is right, I promise you people would call for blood if we went to a SuperBowl and Danny decided to pinch pennies and not re-sign a guy who many considered the MVP of the defense. NFL Network interviewed a media guy (forget who) about Briggs and he said that he absolutely carried that team in the playoffs... I frankly didn't pay attention enough to comment.
If you were criticizing the Cardinals then I couldn't argue that. The Bears have been to a Superbowl. They're cheap as part of being *smart*. We're not. They're winning. We're not. Sure, I'm clouded by those rather fundamental facts. Would you prefer to hold it against them?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, so to speak, and Redskin fans are looking like a very Nicole Richie-esque bag of bones right about now. I really don't see how we have any right to bad mouth teams who go 13-3 and represent the NFC in the playoffs.

[RedskinsDave]

A sure sign that a league is in need of contraction. Not tomention that sports fans in general are morons... Who cares where the team plays> Great players and matchups make for great sports/entertainment. I heard this argument when LeBron came into the NBA... But to me it seems that Cleveland is a draw now BECAUSE of him. I might be wrong though b/c I am far from an NBA fan.

It has nothing to do with where the teams are located. It has to do with mass appeal which those two teams do not have.

[BurgundyNGold]

Aren't "workouts" considered OTAs as well? I didn't hear anyone was missign practices, but yeah as you said, a bunch are working out on their own time and place.
Offseason workouts and OTAs are not the same thing. OTAs are more like padless practices.

[smoak]

More reason to reward him with a healthy new contract, no? If you're building a "team", why knowlingly go out and get a guy who's more interested in himself than the team? You might as well just go out and get Brandon Llo... oh, wait.

It is unfair to compare Briggs to Lloyd.

You are 100% correct in that before the rumors started circulating about us giving up out #6 pick for a player we don't need, I had no need to go and find out the back story on Briggs. Having done that, and given our current LB situation, I don't like the idea of getting him. We don't NEED him. Add in his demonstrated willingness to not participate in OTAs (this is HUGE with Gibbs) and current verbalized willingness to hold out 10 games next year because getting paid $7+M isn't enough, well, I guess I am a bit biased. I don't want him.

Agree we don't need him, but I don't agree with inventing reasons to trash Briggs.

If you were criticizing the Cardinals then I couldn't argue that. The Bears have been to a Superbowl. They're cheap as part of being *smart*. We're not. They're winning. We're not. Sure, I'm clouded by those rather fundamental facts. Would you prefer to hold it against them?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, so to speak, and Redskin fans are looking like a very Nicole Richie-esque bag of bones right about now. I really don't see how we have any right to bad mouth teams who go 13-3 and represent the NFC in the playoffs.

You're looking at a one year window. Using that logic, one would assume the Saints are a better franchsie than the Redskins. Frankly while 2005 was fun and we need more of that, I live by the "second place is just the first loser" mantra and the Bears took advantage of a down year. Seattle should and almost did knock them off... If only it weren't for Briggs. ;)

[lsuredskin]

I still will never understand why so many people and fans on these boards care how much money Danny spends on his team. People have been saying we are gonna be in salary cap hell for about a decade now and we still go out and over spend on anybody we want so what are we so worried about. Who cares if one team is doing things cheaply and we aren't. Their fans still pay a lot to go to the games just like Redskin fans do. We are going to give a lot of money either to an unproven college kid that "could" be a great player or a two time pro-bowl LB and still have a 1st round pick. I say make the deal.

[BurgundyNGold]

I still will never understand why so many people and fans on these boards care how much money Danny spends on his team. People have been saying we are gonna be in salary cap hell for about a decade now and we still go out and over spend on anybody we want so what are we so worried about. Who cares if one team is doing things cheaply and we aren't. Their fans still pay a lot to go to the games just like Redskin fans do. We are going to give a lot of money either to an unproven college kid that "could" be a great player or a two time pro-bowl LB and still have a 1st round pick. I say make the deal.
I don't think people care how much Danny spends on the team. If anything, we're very pleased that he's willing to spend that kind of loot. That said, every spring, he buys a new Maserati. And every year, it's in the garage and in need of repair by Thanksgiving. After 6 or 7 years of that, it isn't unrealistic of folks to ask "Hey, Danny? Why don't you just just buy on a Honda?".

[BurgundyNGold]

It is unfair to compare Briggs to Lloyd.
Why? Lloyd didn't skip any OTAs. He jsut wanted a new deal and SF wasn't willing to give it to him. He wasn't grumbling about a holdout, as I recall.

Agree we don't need him, but I don't agree with inventing reasons to trash Briggs.
I'm not trashing him. He's an excellent player. An excellent player we don't need who seemingly cares more about making the jingle than trying to get back to the Superbowl. Weren't you the one talking about how sad it is that today's players aren't playing for the love of the game? Hell, I doubt Russ Grimm made $7M in his entire career, but at least he had his head screwed on straight. He knew he had a good thing going, he loved his teammates and he loved playing the game. That's my ideal player, not "If I only get $7M, I'm sitting for 10 games". If that's trashing Briggs then tell him to stop acting like a tool.

You're looking at a one year window. Using that logic, one would assume the Saints are a better franchsie than the Redskins. Frankly while 2005 was fun and we need more of that, I live by the "second place is just the first loser" mantra and the Bears took advantage of a down year. Seattle should and almost did knock them off... If only it weren't for Briggs. ;)
Chicago has made the playoffs two of the three years Lovie Smith has been there and two years in a row, making the Superbowl last year. They're moving in the right direction and their way seems to work. Us? Not so much.

Urlacher is the player other teams truly fear on that defense. I'm interested to see what Briggs can do without Urlacher at his side. Only not on the the Redskins. ;)

[smoak]

It has nothing to do with where the teams are located. It has to do with mass appeal which those two teams do not have.

Out of curiosity, do you think the Royals of the 80s had mass appeal? I really liked baseball back then, and would have loved to watch a guy like George Brett in a WS. But I'm not sure most people would even care (maybe they did back then).

A better example might be if you traded the entire Yankees team for the entire Royals team, would the Royals then have mass appeal? I don't think so personally... I agree it isn't geography, but what is it? Baseball just needs to contract b/c the NFL would get ratings no matter what team was in the SB nad contracting would give teams more star players on each roster.

(And I was against contraction before you guys talked about the appeal in a championship game.... Now I think it would help.)

[BurgundyNGold]

Out of curiosity, do you think the Royals of the 80s had mass appeal? I really liked baseball back then, and would have loved to watch a guy like George Brett in a WS. But I'm not sure most people would even care (maybe they did back then).

A better example might be if you traded the entire Yankees team for the entire Royals team, would the Royals then have mass appeal? I don't think so personally... I agree it isn't geography, but what is it? Baseball just needs to contract b/c the NFL would get ratings no matter what team was in the SB nad contracting would give teams more star players on each roster.

(And I was against contraction before you guys talked about the appeal in a championship game.... Now I think it would help.)
Marketing. ;)

[Keino]

I am reserving this place to counter BNG's (what's in my mind) ridiculous argument. I am a little busy right now.....


I will say that what Russ Grimm Made 20 years ago is about as relevant as the Price of Tea in Taiwon, for a number of reasons.

[bergiemoore]

Chicago has made the playoffs two of the three years Lovie Smith has been there and two years in a row, making the Superbowl last year. They're moving in the right direction and their way seems to work. Us? Not so much.

Urlacher is the player other teams truly fear on that defense. I'm interested to see what Briggs can do without Urlacher at his side. Only not on the the Redskins. ;)

Chicago does play in the NFC North, and lately, that's been a wasteland, devoid of football talent or competency. It's no surprise that they've made the playoffs. Don't get me wrong, I think they're a good team with a crushing defense, but NO team with a QB as off and on as Chicago's will move too far in the right direction without a lot of help from lucky circumstances.

Urlacher is a beast, but it was Briggs that stepped up time and again, including when Urlacher was injured 2 years ago. Briggs is a monster in his own right.

[Battle Cat]

Briggs is a monster and I don't think it is a knock against him that the Bears a reluctant to sign him. I mean they are very cheap when it comes to the team barely offering market value to a coach that took you to a Super Bowl (imagine what Daniel Snyder would pay a guy like that) and on their stadium instead of building a new one they put a band-aid on an eye sore. But still I don't think it is a good deal for us we need draft picks in my opinion th eway to build a team is through the draft. Briggs is a good player but I would take either of the top De's in the draft or Branch over him.

[smoak]

Why? Lloyd didn't skip any OTAs. He jsut wanted a new deal and SF wasn't willing to give it to him. He wasn't grumbling about a holdout, as I recall.

We can agree to disagree as I don't feel the need to win you over. Here is an article that explains how I feel (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6534362).
What's the solution for Briggs?

Well, he may have to turn into Terrell Owens, which is totally out of character for him. I mean, he's going to have to skip mini-camps like he did a year ago and get fined and basically become a pain in the butt to Smith and the team. His only option is to force their hand, similar to what Deion Branch did last August when he got himself traded to Seattle for a ridiculous contract.

It's the only option for Briggs, who has been a team leader and a very good tackler for the Bears. I know the franchise salary is $7.2 million, but that's not enough for one of the game's best defensive players.

When it comes to franchise players, the system is no longer working. Dwight Freeney is going through the same deal as Briggs is now, except the Colts will attempt to pay Freeney among the game's best defensive players.

Maybe that's the difference between winning the Super Bowl and losing it. The Colts paid their stars and the Bears paid Urlacher and a few other guys while never rewarding Jones and Briggs. The system prevents teams from taking care of everybody in a fair fashion, but Chicago shouldn't utilize the same system to force solid contributors like Briggs and now-departed Jones to be constantly mad at the front office.

I'm not trashing him. He's an excellent player. An excellent player we don't need who seemingly cares more about making the jingle than trying to get back to the Superbowl. Weren't you the one talking about how sad it is that today's players aren't playing for the love of the game? Hell, I doubt Russ Grimm made $7M in his entire career, but at least he had his head screwed on straight. He knew he had a good thing going, he loved his teammates and he loved playing the game. That's my ideal player, not "If I only get $7M, I'm sitting for 10 games". If that's trashing Briggs then tell him to stop acting like a tool.

My beef is players who holdout or refuse to honor their original signed contracts. That isn't the case with Briggs. Grimm played in the wrong era, and all current players are OVERPAID! But in terms of current salaries, paying Briggs $7MM for one year would be underpaying him.

Wow, now you've resorted to calling Briggs a tool?

Chicago has made the playoffs two of the three years Lovie Smith has been there and two years in a row, making the Superbowl last year. They're moving in the right direction and their way seems to work. Us? Not so much.

Urlacher is the player other teams truly fear on that defense. I'm interested to see what Briggs can do without Urlacher at his side. Only not on the the Redskins. ;)

The Bears play in arguably the weakest division in football and may miss the playoffs next year (seriously, you can lay that one in Vegas). Lovie has done a good job, but the FO is doing everything they can to chase off talent.

I'm done with the topic b/c either you aren't being honest with yourself, or you aren't being honest with us. Forget if the deal was ever rumored b/c that is the real point of contention for you.

Picture this. If you and I each started in entry level positions at competing firms, and through hard work, determination, and a little luck, we were each offered similar positions at the end of our contracts... I can not imagine you would be happy if I was offered a 6 year deal with $20MM gauranteed, and your company wanted you to work on a yearly basis with for only $7MM (un-garaunteed BTW). Also, you aren't allowed to leave for a competitor and if you were to leave the industry (i.e. not the NFL in Briggs' case), you would make only pennies on the dollar. Oh and to top it off, what if the company was bringing in outside people and paying them more than your $7MM. It is only human nature to be pissed. Briggs may not be handling things the best way, but the real "tool" here is the Bears organization. They just don't want to pay him more than the OVERRATED Urlacher.

[shally]

We can agree to disagree as I don't feel the need to win you over. Here is an article that explains how I feel (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6534362).




My beef is players who holdout or refuse to honor their original signed contracts. That isn't the case with Briggs. Grimm played in the wrong era, and all current players are OVERPAID! But in terms of current salaries, paying Briggs $7MM for one year would be underpaying him.

Wow, now you've resorted to calling Briggs a tool?



The Bears play in arguably the weakest division in football and may miss the playoffs next year (seriously, you can lay that one in Vegas). Lovie has done a good job, but the FO is doing everything they can to chase off talent.

I'm done with the topic b/c either you aren't being honest with yourself, or you aren't being honest with us. Forget if the deal was ever rumored b/c that is the real point of contention for you.

Picture this. If you and I each started in entry level positions at competing firms, and through hard work, determination, and a little luck, we were each offered similar positions at the end of our contracts... I can not imagine you would be happy if I was offered a 6 year deal with $20MM gauranteed, and your company wanted you to work on a yearly basis with for only $7MM (un-garaunteed BTW). Also, you aren't allowed to leave for a competitor and if you were to leave the industry (i.e. not the NFL in Briggs' case), you would make only pennies on the dollar. Oh and to top it off, what if the company was bringing in outside people and paying them more than your $7MM. It is only human nature to be pissed. Briggs may not be handling things the best way, but the real "tool" here is the Bears organization. They just don't want to pay him more than the OVERRATED Urlacher.

i think we had a similar situation a couple of years ago when we didnt want to pay pierce over what marcus was making

also, springs was the bell cow for corners salaries onthe team

the rise in the cap has made that kind of resistance to salaries futile

[BurgundyNGold]

We can agree to disagree as I don't feel the need to win you over. Here is an article that explains how I feel (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6534362).
Meh. I don't agree.

My beef is players who holdout or refuse to honor their original signed contracts. That isn't the case with Briggs. Grimm played in the wrong era, and all current players are OVERPAID! But in terms of current salaries, paying Briggs $7MM for one year would be underpaying him.
Yet Shaun Alexader got tagged not once but TWICE? What did he do? Only handle his obvious frustration with class. Briggs should do the same. Sign the tender so long as it is guaranteed that he will not be tagged again next season. Not turn into a TO or a Branch. There is a system in place for a reason.

Wow, now you've resorted to calling Briggs a tool?
I characterized his actions, I didn't call him a tool. And, IMO, his actions are not quite Craftsman, but definitely Snap-On.

The Bears play in arguably the weakest division in football and may miss the playoffs next year (seriously, you can lay that one in Vegas). Lovie has done a good job, but the FO is doing everything they can to chase off talent.
Speculating about the future does nothing for what we're talking about. Especially when the folks in Chicago will be getting NFC championship rings.

I'm done with the topic b/c either you aren't being honest with yourself, or you aren't being honest with us. Forget if the deal was ever rumored b/c that is the real point of contention for you.
Yes, I gave my opinion on Briggs as it relates to the Redskins. That's what they don't pay me for around here. Briggs is a L-U-X-U-R-Y. Briggs will cost us too much for a position that we don't need at the expense of (a) position(s) that we DO need. After the Lloyd ordeal where we knew his propensity for selfishness but went after him anyway, I'm not too eager to repeat the same mistakes for a guy who is acting like a spoiled child. Even Archuleta was supposed to be a "good guy" who reportedly threw his coaches under the bus in an ESPN article. You can't be too careful picking the right people, especially when you can't afford them to begin with.

Picture this. If you and I each started in entry level positions at competing firms, and through hard work, determination, and a little luck, we were each offered similar positions at the end of our contracts... I can not imagine you would be happy if I was offered a 6 year deal with $20MM gauranteed, and your company wanted you to work on a yearly basis with for only $7MM (un-garaunteed BTW). Also, you aren't allowed to leave for a competitor and if you were to leave the industry (i.e. not the NFL in Briggs' case), you would make only pennies on the dollar. Oh and to top it off, what if the company was bringing in outside people and paying them more than your $7MM. It is only human nature to be pissed. Briggs may not be handling things the best way, but the real "tool" here is the Bears organization. They just don't want to pay him more than the OVERRATED Urlacher.
Now who's not being honest. Do really think that Briggs is better than Urlacher?

If that was the contract I signed, that's what I would have to honor. He did. but not without bitching about it, skipping OTA's and being demoted. Now that he doesn't have a contract, he is welcome to sit at home and play Madden. Next year, he can sign with whomever he so chooses. But, if he wants to play football this season, there is a $7M+ contract waiting for him in Chicago. As we sit right now, I would not deal for him because of 1) the cost in $$$, 2) the cost in picks, 3) the lack of need, and 4) as a lesser factor, what I consider to be character issues.

The next time I'm neck deep in booty, I'll consider it, but until then comparing what you and I do with what professional athletes do ecomonically is preposterous.

[akhhorus]

Yet Shaun Alexader got tagged not once but TWICE? What did he do? Only handle his obvious frustration with class. Briggs should do the same. Sign the tender so long as it is guaranteed that he will not be tagged again next season. Not turn into a TO or a Branch. There is a system in place for a reason.

Point of order: Alexander's agent called it a "penalty" and that they feel "hamstrung" and complained that the Hawks had "bigger priorities" than his client. Briggs was more enthusiastic about his complaining, but I would hardly say that Alexander(and his agent) were classy. Holmgren compared to to a prison for players.

[shally]

Point of order: Alexander's agent called it a "penalty" and that they feel "hamstrung" and complained that the Hawks had "bigger priorities" than his client. Briggs was more enthusiastic about his complaining, but I would hardly say that Alexander(and his agent) were classy. Holmgren compared to to a prison for players.

man-children...all of them.. they all have an altered sense of reality

[skins111111]

da Bears are paying him the average of the top 5 players at his position and if I'm not mistaken thats exactly what he is......Da bears are playing by the rules so why not Briggs? Shure he can barter for a deal like Alexander did but the whining and crying and threatening to sit out-----all HAIL Gaines Adams

[urobm]

Briggs is a monster and I don't think it is a knock against him that the Bears a reluctant to sign him. I mean they are very cheap when it comes to the team barely offering market value to a coach that took you to a Super Bowl (imagine what Daniel Snyder would pay a guy like that) and on their stadium instead of building a new one they put a band-aid on an eye sore. But still I don't think it is a good deal for us we need draft picks in my opinion th eway to build a team is through the draft. Briggs is a good player but I would take either of the top De's in the draft or Branch over him.


I agree Briggs is very good, and Chicago should pay him. We do need draft picks and getting Briggs in no way provides us with more picks. Briggs cant play DE so we have no need for him. We need a DE that can put pressure on the QB and that will be a boost for the entire defense.

[shally]

da Bears are paying him the average of the top 5 players at his position and if I'm not mistaken thats exactly what he is......Da bears are playing by the rules so why not Briggs? Shure he can barter for a deal like Alexander did but the whining and crying and threatening to sit out-----all HAIL Gaines Adams

good point but it is the long term security he is looking to cash in on

[urobm]

da Bears are paying him the average of the top 5 players at his position and if I'm not mistaken thats exactly what he is......Da bears are playing by the rules so why not Briggs? Shure he can barter for a deal like Alexander did but the whining and crying and threatening to sit out-----all HAIL Gaines Adams


LOL, yes exactly, I have a problem with players that act out like this. As you say the Bears are playing quite fair, but Briggs is doing the complete opposite. I dont want a player like this on our team, because even though he is a very good LB players shouldnt be able to make a franchise accomidate them so easily.

[skins111111]

good point but it is the long term security he is looking to cash in on
I know but the rules are in place and if he doesn't know them his agent should.
that being said its probably his greedy agent pushing Briggs buttons