Briggs Thread (Part IV) - Trade Dead (Post 233 and Beyond)

[WinnpegSkinsFan]

Great news. Good job by the FO for sticking to their guns. For once we didn't get screwed in a trade. Let the Bears stew - we don't need to solve their problems.

[lonewate44]

I have seen a couple things saying the giants were offering their 1st rounder and a 4th for Briggs straight up. If that is the case, then they will definetly talk with NY, and I say good. Although I don't want to see him in NY, it's better then seeing him in Burgandy & Gold for the skins if they have to do more then the original offer.

I'm glad this is dead, please chicago, make a deal with someone else and remove the temptation, then the skins can look to trade down in the draft!!!!

[HanburgerBum]

Well, one is a turnover and is a sack. Whats ridiculous is that you're now trying to twist stats to fit your argument instead of looking at what Briggs is and what Briggs isn't. You said he wasn't a turnover machine(paraphrase), and when we found the stats, you've suddenly decided to change the criteria.



Okay, fine. Let's take your criteria. So any realistic potental trade vs the #6 vs Briggs and the #31. We know what Briggs is--all those draft picks are a total crapshoot.



I disagree. Cooley and Campbell count as trades since we did exactly what you complain about to get them.



Don't expect much--certainly not some deal which involves us getting even a 2nd rounder back.



At the time, Bailey wasn't considered even a top 10 CB in the NFL and Portis was a top 5 rb. And its ridiculous to compare that deal to this since we aren't 'giving' up any draft picks, just trading back.



You completely missed the point of my comment. My commentary is that y'all complain and moan about losing homegrown talent, trading away picks needlessly, signing big contracts and this-somehow-is the reasons for the skins' failures in 2006 and that Polian in an example of doing exactly that and succeeding in the NFL. The concept you missed is that the FO moves and style aren't to blame for the failures(not completely--they haven't helped at times).


Actually, it is NOT my intention to switch arguments just because MW has more sacks than Briggs. If you will look at my initial post on the subject, I lumped sacks, interceptions and fumbles together as "turnovers" because I don't know of a generic term for all those things. Probably, a sack is not as devastating as a true turnover, but I consider sack totals to be an indication of an "impact" player as well.

I will admit that Briggs is a good player for Chicago, but I am not blinded by his "pro bowl" appearances (Lavar was in three of those when I doubt he deserved even one). I simply don't want to take the risk that Briggs may not be that good for the Skins. That's why I take issue with your statement that Briggs is a sure thing and drafted players are gambles. Washington obviously thought Archuleta and Lloyd are locks also to have signed them to such big contracts.

Well, you can regard Cooley and Campbell as "trades" if you wish, but I considered them to be draftees. Perhaps we are both right in that they were drafted after trades made the picks available. But, even in those two trades, I think the Skins overpaid. The wanton disregard of the value of draft choices got the team in a bind where there was no current pick available to choose a player the team really wanted. The Skins had to give up a future 2 for a present 3 to draft Cooley, and a future 1 and 4 (plus a current 3) to pick Campbell. This causes a shortage of choices the following season, which then causes more mortgaging of future picks. And, each time the team mortgages, the price is steeper than current choices. This vicious cycle will never end, until the team decides to just go cold turkey one year. It's time to do that.

I didn't like Bailey's attitude either when he left, but I totally disagree with your assessment that he was not a top 5 CB then. Many experts at the time were surprised that Washington had to kick in a 2nd rounder instead of the other way around.

As for Polian, I haven't followed every move he has made. It may be that he has engaged in some of the same practice as the Skins have. But, whatever those moves have been, they have worked for Indy (that's the bottom line!), and they sure have not worked here. Besides, Indy is not the same team as Washington. One is a defending SB champion, while the other is a wanna be searching for an identity. Those moves may be sound for the Colts, but unsound for the Skins. I would be ecstatic if our team can hire someone like Polian to make personnel decisions.

[bergiemoore]

I have seen a couple things saying the giants were offering their 1st rounder and a 4th for Briggs straight up. If that is the case, then they will definetly talk with NY, and I say good. Although I don't want to see him in NY, it's better then seeing him in Burgandy & Gold for the skins if they have to do more then the original offer.

I'm glad this is dead, please chicago, make a deal with someone else and remove the temptation, then the skins can look to trade down in the draft!!!!

Funny thing is, the Giants 1st (850pts) and 4th(62pts) is less of a value than they would have gotten had they swapped firsts with us (1600 - 600 = 1000pts) by 88pts. according to the draft pick value chart, for whatever that's worth.

[HanburgerBum]

While the apparent demise of the Briggs trade is very good news, I am not counting my chickens yet. What is there to prevent the Bears from accepting the initial offer once Washington turns down the counter offer? Do the Skins realize that they have just dodged a bullet and quickly run away from this deal? I doubt it.

In fact, after Chicago gets thru talking to other potential suitors for Briggs and find that no team is willing to come close to the Redskins' offer, the Bears will be back. Is our front office smart enough then to tell the Bears to shove it, or throw in a second rounder? I hope so, but I doubt it.

[bergiemoore]

While the apparent demise of the Briggs trade is very good news, I am not counting my chickens yet. What is there to prevent the Bears from accepting the initial offer once Washington turns down the counter offer? Do the Skins realize that they have just dodged a bullet and quickly run away from this deal? I doubt it.

In fact, after Chicago gets thru talking to other potential suitors for Briggs and find that no team is willing to come close to the Redskins' offer, the Bears will be back. Is our front office smart enough then to tell the Bears to shove it, or throw in a second rounder? I hope so, but I doubt it.

According to Clayton at ESPN, this is a one time offer that expires today. If they don't accept today, it is off the table, according to his sources inside Redskin Park. Not sure how credible that is. Take it for what it's worth. LINK (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2823964)

[guinness4health]

But, even in those two trades, I think the Skins overpaid. The wanton disregard of the value of draft choices got the team in a bind where there was no current pick available to choose a player the team really wanted. The Skins had to give up a future 2 for a present 3 to draft Cooley, and a future 1 and 4 (plus a current 3) to pick Campbell.

We didn't overpay in either of those deals...we paid the going rate (it happens all the time)

[American Soldier]

He seemed to be pretty holey in the middle last year, lol.

holey in the middle. Now that was clllaaaasic!! lol

[cmdlost29]

News that the trade proposal was rejected by the Bears makes sense to me from the Bears perspective. Forget that the Bears might be thinking that our front office is inept and they can get more from this trade for a second and consider this from a Bears perspective...

1. If they were to trade Briggs they have a whole to fill at LB'er. There isn't a player at the LB position in this draft worth taking at #6. So that wouldn't work for them. It would require them to trade down in the draft from our position and this delay probably was a way for the Bears to see if they could trade down from the #6 position and the possibility of that happening probably isn't very good

2. They don't want to pay a rookie a huge salary regardless of the position. They didn't even want to pay the coach that took them to the Super Bowl, that team is cheap.

So the trade didn't make sense to me for either team. If the Bears keep Briggs they might get a team to sign him to an offer sheet and get more picks for him later. Or they can get more for him from the Redskins if they are serious. Or they can see if he is indeed prepared to lose 5 million dollars by sitting out. For a player that wants to get paid it doesn't make a lot of sense they would be willing to give up 5 million dollars does it?

As much as I love the Redskins the Bears are in control here and always have been. They seemed to have saved us from ourselves in this deal. The only thing that worries me is the idea that if we throw in Holdman they will take the deal. I respect the fact that the Redskins dont want to toss in Rocky, but even a trade were we lose depth that Holdman provides us we are once again giving up too much to another team in a trade.

I think the writing on the wall says that we have no choice but to draft at number 6. I don't think there is going to be any serious suitors to trade with for the draft pick unless one of the top 5 blue chippers falls out of the top 5. I sincerially hope that we have the right players scouted. For as much as the prospect of drafting CJ might seem, he is not what is going to take this defense from the second worst in the league to the top. We need to address the Defense Line, like it or not

[akhhorus]

Actually, it is NOT my intention to switch arguments just because MW has more sacks than Briggs. If you will look at my initial post on the subject, I lumped sacks, interceptions and fumbles together as "turnovers" because I don't know of a generic term for all those things. Probably, a sack is not as devastating as a true turnover, but I consider sack totals to be an indication of an "impact" player as well.

Funny, you said turnover to start with. I guess when the stats came out, you needed to make them look different?

I will admit that Briggs is a good player for Chicago, but I am not blinded by his "pro bowl" appearances (Lavar was in three of those when I doubt he deserved even one).

Lavar never made an all pro team I believe, Briggs did. And Lavar did deserve to make 2 of them.

I simply don't want to take the risk that Briggs may not be that good for the Skins. That's why I take issue with your statement that Briggs is a sure thing and drafted players are gambles. Washington obviously thought Archuleta and Lloyd are locks also to have signed them to such big contracts.

Again, you keep bringing up Lloyd and Arch as evidence. Neither were as accomplished or lauded as Briggs. So, should the skins just not sign or trade for anyone because of Arch and Lloyd?

Well, you can regard Cooley and Campbell as "trades" if you wish, but I considered them to be draftees. Perhaps we are both right in that they were drafted after trades made the picks available. But, even in those two trades, I think the Skins overpaid. The wanton disregard of the value of draft choices got the team in a bind where there was no current pick available to choose a player the team really wanted. The Skins had to give up a future 2 for a present 3 to draft Cooley, and a future 1 and 4 (plus a current 3) to pick Campbell. This causes a shortage of choices the following season, which then causes more mortgaging of future picks. And, each time the team mortgages, the price is steeper than current choices. This vicious cycle will never end, until the team decides to just go cold turkey one year. It's time to do that.

Again, the skins wouldn't have been "giving" up any draft picks-just swapping them-so your comparison is in error.

I didn't like Bailey's attitude either when he left, but I totally disagree with your assessment that he was not a top 5 CB then. Many experts at the time were surprised that Washington had to kick in a 2nd rounder instead of the other way around.

Thats not true at all. Bailey was a pro bowler(some question on whether he should have gone in 02 and 03), but no one thought he was top 5 much less top 10 in the league. Before the 03 season, Pastabelli speculated that we could get a first and more for him, and no one offered even a first for him after his 2003 campaign(which was terrible).

As for Polian, I haven't followed every move he has made. It may be that he has engaged in some of the same practice as the Skins have. But, whatever those moves have been, they have worked for Indy (that's the bottom line!), and they sure have not worked here. Besides, Indy is not the same team as Washington. One is a defending SB champion, while the other is a wanna be searching for an identity. Those moves may be sound for the Colts, but unsound for the Skins. I would be ecstatic if our team can hire someone like Polian to make personnel decisions.

You just completely miss the point again. You whine about the way the skins give away draft picks, and the Colts do that. You (and others) whine about the big contracts handed out to big name players, and the Colts do that. You(and others) complain that we let homegrown players walk, and the Colts do that more than we do. The point is that the way Snyder/Gibbs run the FO isn't to blame for our failures. But they're an easy target because no one wants to blame the players for anything.

[Skaggsrules]

It's funny, I'm currently a student at JMU, and I'm in the COB undergrad program, and yesterday I had to make a group presentation on "Effective Negotiations in the Workplace" I resisted the urge to use the Redskins as an example, but a concept I had to push strongly in my presentation was the "Bargaining and Problem Solving" stage of Negotiation.....I had to explain that you need to negotiate on the problems you want fixed and your interests, but not to leave the table in a win-lose or lose-lose situation, and if the other party doesn't meet your demands, than it's ok to say no deal and look for a better deal....This whole trade, personally, was win-lose (Bears winning) they get rid of the guy that doesn't want to play for them, and move up 25 spots in the draft...while we gain a guy who might not even fit the system, when we already have a good group of LB's, and lack the line. Synder should be lucky the Bears said no deal....Sorry for presenting my presentation to you guys as well.

[HanburgerBum]

According to Clayton at ESPN, this is a one time offer that expires today. If they don't accept today, it is off the table, according to his sources inside Redskin Park. Not sure how credible that is. Take it for what it's worth. LINK (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2823964)


Sure, the deal may have been a one-time offer. But, there is nothing to prevent the Skins from rekindling the offer. If they were dumb enough to propose this trade in the first place, they must believe it to be a good deal for Washington. Therefore, if Chicago came back two weeks from now and is willing to take the initial offer, wouldn't our front office still believe the trade to be a good one (since nothing has changed)? If so, why wouldn't Washington accept the deal then?

The problem is Chicago knows the Skins want to make this trade because they apparently made the initial offer. The Bears can take their time and pursue other alternatives, but in the end they know there is always one front office (who have made a ton of bad moves) that is willing to bail them out of the Briggs morass. I hope I am wrong about this, but I doubt it.

[WinnpegSkinsFan]

Sure, the deal may have been a one-time offer. But, there is nothing to prevent the Skins from rekindling the offer. If they were dumb enough to propose this trade in the first place, they must believe it to be a good deal for Washington. Therefore, if Chicago came back two weeks from now and is willing to take the initial offer, wouldn't our front office still believe the trade to be a good one (since nothing has changed)? If so, why wouldn't Washington accept the deal then?

The problem is Chicago knows the Skins want to make this trade because they apparently made the initial offer. The Bears can take their time and pursue other alternatives, but in the end they know there is always one front office (who have made a ton of bad moves) that is willing to bail them out of the Briggs morass. I hope I am wrong about this, but I doubt it.

This could be the case but I'm hopeful that the Skins FO will focus their efforts on other draft day trades (hopefully down). While not a fan of the original proposal I'm at least thankful the Skins stuck to their guns and didn't add more to the deal.

[Keino]

I hate this thread. I also hate when Redd Foxx is used in derrogatory fashion. One could argue that Foxx's quips were as quick as a rabbit on caffeine.....especially when talking to Aunt Esther.

Next time say as fast as George Burns....or Montgomery Burns.

:)

[akhhorus]

I hate this thread. I also hate when Redd Foxx is used in derrogatory fashion. One could argue that Foxx's quips were as quick as a rabbit on caffeine.....especially when talking to Aunt Esther.

Next time say as fast as George Burns....or Montgomery Burns.

:)

Redd was fast of mind, slow of foot.

[bergiemoore]

News that the trade proposal was rejected by the Bears makes sense to me from the Bears perspective. Forget that the Bears might be thinking that our front office is inept and they can get more from this trade for a second and consider this from a Bears perspective...

1. If they were to trade Briggs they have a whole to fill at LB'er. There isn't a player at the LB position in this draft worth taking at #6. So that wouldn't work for them. It would require them to trade down in the draft from our position and this delay probably was a way for the Bears to see if they could trade down from the #6 position and the possibility of that happening probably isn't very good


This is going to be a problem for the Bears, either way. Briggs will sit out at least 1 game. They have to address the OLB position by the start of the season regardless of whether they did this deal or not.


2. They don't want to pay a rookie a huge salary regardless of the position. They didn't even want to pay the coach that took them to the Super Bowl, that team is cheap.

I agree. The only way they'd stay with the #6, had they made the trade, would be to pick up Quinn. Apparently, they think that Grossman can get it done. I know that I wouldn't want him as my starting QB, however.


So the trade didn't make sense to me for either team. If the Bears keep Briggs they might get a team to sign him to an offer sheet and get more picks for him later. Or they can get more for him from the Redskins if they are serious. Or they can see if he is indeed prepared to lose 5 million dollars by sitting out. For a player that wants to get paid it doesn't make a lot of sense they would be willing to give up 5 million dollars does it?


Rosenhaus is his agent, so you can be sure that this situation will not end by Briggs reporting to the team in a timely fashion. Briggs will make more money this year than the veteran minimum by playing only 6 games. If he doesn't sit out, as he's promised, than Chicago would just as likely franchise tag him next year as well. If he wants to get his big payday, and a guaranteed $20 mil, which he will get barring injury, he will have to forgo 5 million this year. It's pretty easy math, really.


As much as I love the Redskins the Bears are in control here and always have been. They seemed to have saved us from ourselves in this deal. The only thing that worries me is the idea that if we throw in Holdman they will take the deal. I respect the fact that the Redskins dont want to toss in Rocky, but even a trade were we lose depth that Holdman provides us we are once again giving up too much to another team in a trade.

I assume you meant to say Marshal and not Holdman, as he is no longer on the team.

This deal was a one time offer by the Redskins to the Bears. It was not a negotiation, according to ESPN, at least. The offer was made by the Skins FO, and the Bears were only in control in that they could either accept or reject. I'm not sure how that makes the Skins FO weak, or not in control. It's not our player that will likely sit out 10 games, and screw up our roster. It's theirs. They think that they can get him to play. Good luck. Drew Rosenhaus will get his guy his money.

I think the writing on the wall says that we have no choice but to draft at number 6. I don't think there is going to be any serious suitors to trade with for the draft pick unless one of the top 5 blue chippers falls out of the top 5. I sincerially hope that we have the right players scouted. For as much as the prospect of drafting CJ might seem, he is not what is going to take this defense from the second worst in the league to the top. We need to address the Defense Line, like it or not

I agree that we need to take a DLineman in the draft, but I hate the thought of doing that with the #6 pick. I hope that on draft day some deals open up and swing some extra picks our way.

[HanburgerBum]

We didn't overpay in either of those deals...we paid the going rate (it happens all the time)


I am aware that the value chart penalizes a team for mortgaging in that one has to give a higher round future pick for a present pick. In my opinion, it is in general stupid to keep mortgaging in this manner.

Right off the bat, it is never a good idea to give a higher round pick for a present lower round pick unless one is certain that the draft field for the higher round pick is a weaker than the present draft field. An exception to that rule would be if there is a special player that would put a team over the top or is a once in a lifetime player. The Redskins make a habit of trading future picks for present picks--so, obviously their strategy doesn't fall into this exception.

Therefore, Washington is giving away that difference between rounds each time it trades a future pick for a present pick. How can that be smart over the long haul? Well, wouldn't you know it, the results indicate that the front office hasn't been very smart.

[gibbsisgod]

Redd was fast of mind, slow of foot.



Man i could go for some shampiple

[shally]

If he sits for 10 games, they'd only have to pay him 2.7 million (prorated salary for 6 games).

ahhh.. thanks.. even that is a bad deal for them.. he is unlikely to be in "football" shape no matter how he is working out

[shally]

According to Clayton at ESPN, this is a one time offer that expires today. If they don't accept today, it is off the table, according to his sources inside Redskin Park. Not sure how credible that is. Take it for what it's worth. LINK (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2823964)


they can pound sand.. or eat cake.. or whatever... just say NO

[bergiemoore]

Sure, the deal may have been a one-time offer. But, there is nothing to prevent the Skins from rekindling the offer. If they were dumb enough to propose this trade in the first place, they must believe it to be a good deal for Washington. Therefore, if Chicago came back two weeks from now and is willing to take the initial offer, wouldn't our front office still believe the trade to be a good one (since nothing has changed)? If so, why wouldn't Washington accept the deal then?

There's also nothing to prevent Snyder from firing Gibbs, trading Moss for Drew Bledsoe, and signing Jesse Lumsden as our starting RB.

The fact that the FO put a time limit on this offer indicates that they wouldn't want this to be an open ended negotiation that could stretch on for the next month. I think they did this so that they could move on to talks with other teams about other prospects.


The problem is Chicago knows the Skins want to make this trade because they apparently made the initial offer. The Bears can take their time and pursue other alternatives, but in the end they know there is always one front office (who have made a ton of bad moves) that is willing to bail them out of the Briggs morass. I hope I am wrong about this, but I doubt it.

I won't speak to the history of this FO, but so far this off-season, they've done well.

The trade that the Skins proposed was a good one for the Skins. Briggs is a dominate OLB which would upgrade the talent we have in that unit. We would also have been able to draft a very good DLineman at #31, which is where the FO would rather be drafting anyway, according to Gibbs. This trade may not have addressed a position of great need, but it would not have hurt this defense one bit.

If Chicago walks away from this deal, it's because they think they can either convince Briggs to play, or get more value for him elsewhere. If they come back a month later, the Skins should raise the asking price, as it would be a sign that they are not able to get anything better elsewhere.

[shally]

There's also nothing to prevent Snyder from firing Gibbs, trading Moss for Drew Bledsoe, and signing Jesse Lumsden as our starting RB.

The fact that the FO put a time limit on this offer indicates that they wouldn't want this to be an open ended negotiation that could stretch on for the next month. I think they did this so that they could move on to talks with other teams about other prospects.



I won't speak to the history of this FO, but so far this off-season, they've done well.

The trade that the Skins proposed was a good one for the Skins. Briggs is a dominate OLB which would upgrade the talent we have in that unit. We would also have been able to draft a very good DLineman at #31, which is where the FO would rather be drafting anyway, according to Gibbs. This trade may not have addressed a position of great need, but it would not have hurt this defense one bit.

If Chicago walks away from this deal, it's because they think they can either convince Briggs to play, or get more value for him elsewhere. If they come back a month later, the Skins should raise the asking price, as it would be a sign that they are not able to get anything better elsewhere.

let's see if chicago can get him to even play for them before the second half of the season..
having him giving press conferences every day and keeping track of the days he is held hostage to his contract is going to be a total distraction for them

[HanburgerBum]

Funny, you said turnover to start with. I guess when the stats came out, you needed to make them look different?



Lavar never made an all pro team I believe, Briggs did. And Lavar did deserve to make 2 of them.



Again, you keep bringing up Lloyd and Arch as evidence. Neither were as accomplished or lauded as Briggs. So, should the skins just not sign or trade for anyone because of Arch and Lloyd?



Again, the skins wouldn't have been "giving" up any draft picks-just swapping them-so your comparison is in error.



Thats not true at all. Bailey was a pro bowler(some question on whether he should have gone in 02 and 03), but no one thought he was top 5 much less top 10 in the league. Before the 03 season, Pastabelli speculated that we could get a first and more for him, and no one offered even a first for him after his 2003 campaign(which was terrible).



You just completely miss the point again. You whine about the way the skins give away draft picks, and the Colts do that. You (and others) whine about the big contracts handed out to big name players, and the Colts do that. You(and others) complain that we let homegrown players walk, and the Colts do that more than we do. The point is that the way Snyder/Gibbs run the FO isn't to blame for our failures. But they're an easy target because no one wants to blame the players for anything.


I don't know how I can convince you that it was not my intention to switch argumets after I have seen MW's sack totals. All I can do is refer you to my earlier post (No. 93) where I lumped sacks, interceptions and fumbles together as a way to gage whether a player is an impact player, because I don't know of a term which includes all three.

As for Lavar, I guess we can agree to disagree. I don't believe he was a deserving pro bowl player at any time in his career. He was mostly flash. No one in DC bothered to closely examine his game--all the assignments he missed.

I guess we can also agree to disagree about Bailey. To me, even after a so-so last year here, he was a top 5 corner. Besides, even if you are right about Champ and that he should have been ranked lower than Portis, corners are worth more than RBs in the NFL. There is just no way the Skins should have had to kick in a 2nd rounder. Our front office panicked and got fleeced.

As for Polian, I don't think I missed your point at all. You are saying Polian does the same things the Skins front office does. So, why are some of us complaining? Well, even assuming you are right about Polian doing the same things as our front office, it's the results that count. He has a SB team, we have what? So, obviously, he is picking the right players to keep and let go, and the Skins are not. If it is not our front office's fault, then whose fault is it that the team finished 5-11 with the defense seemingly in shambles?

[bergiemoore]

ahhh.. thanks.. even that is a bad deal for them.. he is unlikely to be in "football" shape no matter how he is working out

He's also that much less likely to be "football" injured, only playing in 6 games.

Seriously, you think this guy is going to cave? It will only invite the Bears FO to slap him with the franchise tag again next year. I think he has a better chance of getting his pay day by sitting out now, while he's 26, than waiting a year. Even if he's not in "football" shape, he'll be almost guaranteed that the Bears will let him leave. Even if he sits out, don't the Bears have to take the entire 7.2 mil hit to their cap?

[bergiemoore]

let's see if chicago can get him to even play for them before the second half of the season..
having him giving press conferences every day and keeping track of the days he is held hostage to his contract is going to be a total distraction for them
"This is Walter Cronkite here with Drew Rosenhaus on day 32 of the Briggs hostage crisis. Tell us, Mr. Rosenhaus, what did Lance do today?"

:lol1:

[shally]

He's also that much less likely to be "football" injured, only playing in 6 games.

Seriously, you think this guy is going to cave? It will only invite the Bears FO to slap him with the franchise tag again next year. I think he has a better chance of getting his pay day by sitting out now, while he's 26, than waiting a year. Even if he's not in "football" shape, he'll be almost guaranteed that the Bears will let him leave. Even if he sits out, don't the Bears have to take the entire 7.2 mil hit to their cap?

he wont cave.. the bears will blink first because they are getting nothing for him this year.. even if he plays the end of the year, he is going to be a total distraction for them.
look at the circus that TO created in philly .. this will be worse

[firehawk157]

let's see if chicago can get him to even play for them before the second half of the season..
having him giving press conferences every day and keeping track of the days he is held hostage to his contract is going to be a total distraction for them

GOOD! The more we can hurt another NFC team, the better IMO. Triple points if they are an NFC East opponent.

[shally]

"This is Walter Cronkite here with Drew Rosenhaus on day 32 of the Briggs hostage crisis. Tell us, Mr. Rosenhaus, what did Lance do today?"

:lol1:

exactly.. we are going to have daily updates...the bears are heading for the toilet because this type of thing is impossible to contain if they try to keep him

[bergiemoore]

Well, even assuming you are right about Polian doing the same things as our front office, it's the results that count. He has a SB team, we have what? So, obviously, he is picking the right players to keep and let go, and the Skins are not. If it is not our front office's fault, then whose fault is it that the team finished 5-11 with the defense seemingly in shambles?

So if we win a SuperBowl, I have to give Vinny credit? UHG!!

[shally]

GOOD! The more we can hurt another NFC team, the better IMO. Triple points if they are an NFC East opponent.

that is why it is folly to think that he ends up in detroit or any other norris division team.. it helps detroit more for him to be roiling the waters in chicago

[shally]

So if we win a SuperBowl, I have to give Vinny credit? UHG!!

rest assured he will be getting a huge raise and increase in power if we do...

[bergiemoore]

rest assured he will be getting a huge raise and increase in power if we do...

I REALLY hope that the FO house cleaning rumor has something to it, and Vinny is out on his arse.

[shally]

I REALLY hope that the FO house cleaning rumor has something to it, and Vinny is out on his arse.

if it doesnt happen right after the draft i do not think it is happening

[HanburgerBum]

News that the trade proposal was rejected by the Bears makes sense to me from the Bears perspective. Forget that the Bears might be thinking that our front office is inept and they can get more from this trade for a second and consider this from a Bears perspective...

1. If they were to trade Briggs they have a whole to fill at LB'er. There isn't a player at the LB position in this draft worth taking at #6. So that wouldn't work for them. It would require them to trade down in the draft from our position and this delay probably was a way for the Bears to see if they could trade down from the #6 position and the possibility of that happening probably isn't very good

2. They don't want to pay a rookie a huge salary regardless of the position. They didn't even want to pay the coach that took them to the Super Bowl, that team is cheap.

So the trade didn't make sense to me for either team. If the Bears keep Briggs they might get a team to sign him to an offer sheet and get more picks for him later. Or they can get more for him from the Redskins if they are serious. Or they can see if he is indeed prepared to lose 5 million dollars by sitting out. For a player that wants to get paid it doesn't make a lot of sense they would be willing to give up 5 million dollars does it?

As much as I love the Redskins the Bears are in control here and always have been. They seemed to have saved us from ourselves in this deal. The only thing that worries me is the idea that if we throw in Holdman they will take the deal. I respect the fact that the Redskins dont want to toss in Rocky, but even a trade were we lose depth that Holdman provides us we are once again giving up too much to another team in a trade.

I think the writing on the wall says that we have no choice but to draft at number 6. I don't think there is going to be any serious suitors to trade with for the draft pick unless one of the top 5 blue chippers falls out of the top 5. I sincerially hope that we have the right players scouted. For as much as the prospect of drafting CJ might seem, he is not what is going to take this defense from the second worst in the league to the top. We need to address the Defense Line, like it or not


You are right that the Bears are in control in the present situation. But, they shouldn't be. They have the Briggs problem, not the Skins. They are the ones with an unhappy player who threatens to hold out the first 10 games, not the Skins. They are the ones, if the Skins really back off of this trade, who won't find many serious suitors for Briggs at the price they are asking.

But, sadly, the Bears are in control, because they know when the chips are down there is one inept front office (east of the Mississippi and west of the Atlantic Ocean) that will bail them out.

[firehawk157]

that is why it is folly to think that he ends up in detroit or any other norris division team.. it helps detroit more for him to be roiling the waters in chicago

I've heard some talks about him going to the Giants...

[akhhorus]

I don't know how I can convince you that it was not my intention to switch argumets after I have seen MW's sack totals. All I can do is refer you to my earlier post (No. 93) where I lumped sacks, interceptions and fumbles together as a way to gage whether a player is an impact player, because I don't know of a term which includes all three.

No term includes all three because they are completely different things. Sacks are nice, turnovers matter more. Washington's sack advantage doesn't overcome Briggs' massive turnover advantage.

As for Lavar, I guess we can agree to disagree. I don't believe he was a deserving pro bowl player at any time in his career. He was mostly flash. No one in DC bothered to closely examine his game--all the assignments he missed.

I'm one of Lavar's biggest bashers here, and I think he deserved 2 of his pro bowls. You're so big on the sacks/turnover stats, Lavar had 17.5 sacks, 3 ints and 17 fumbles from 2001-2003. Thats pretty damn good(better than Marcus Washington).

I guess we can also agree to disagree about Bailey. To me, even after a so-so last year here, he was a top 5 corner. Besides, even if you are right about Champ and that he should have been ranked lower than Portis, corners are worth more than RBs in the NFL. There is just no way the Skins should have had to kick in a 2nd rounder. Our front office panicked and got fleeced.

A great RB is worth far more than a great CB. And its your opinion that we got fleeced, but you've shown that you look for nothing but what to whine about. Bailey wasn't going to stay here(unless we wanted to keep tagging him to keep him), so it was a 2nd for Portis. And the only other serious offer we got for Bailey was a 2nd rounder and Cory Redding. I'll take Portis.

As for Polian, I don't think I missed your point at all. You are saying Polian does the same things the Skins front office does. So, why are some of us complaining?

No, you still miss the point. The point is that while we complain what the Skins FO does(also after 05, we were complimenting them and their style and this offseason has been like the offseason before 05), what they do automatically doesn't lead to failures. Some people would have you believe that things like the Duckett deal mattered at all to last season. Or the arch signing led to all the failures of the defense. Its moronic.

Well, even assuming you are right about Polian doing the same things as our front office, it's the results that count. He has a SB team, we have what? So, obviously, he is picking the right players to keep and let go, and the Skins are not. If it is not our front office's fault, then whose fault is it that the team finished 5-11 with the defense seemingly in shambles?

How about everyone? The players(who rarely get criticized here unless your name rhymes with Fark Frunell), the FO and the coaches. And Polian has a SB team, it took him what, 7-8 years to get there in Indy? Oh wait, the Duckett deal demoralized everyone on the skins to the point that they didn't want to tackle on defense :rolleyes:

[firehawk157]

You are right that the Bears are in control in the present situation. But, they shouldn't be. They have the Briggs problem, not the Skins. They are the ones with an unhappy player who threatens to hold out the first 10 games, not the Skins. They are the ones, if the Skins really back off of this trade, who won't find many serious suitors for Briggs at the price they are asking.

But, sadly, the Bears are in control, because they know when the chips are down there is one inept front office (east of the Mississippi and west of the Atlantic Ocean) that will bail them out.

Damn, what does this kind of pessimism accomplish? Our FO isn't the worst in the league.

[shally]

I've heard some talks about him going to the Giants...

not unless they up their offer considerably.. plus, he has to at least agree with the giants on salary-- no guarantee of that yet either

[akhhorus]

You are right that the Bears are in control in the present situation. But, they shouldn't be. They have the Briggs problem, not the Skins. They are the ones with an unhappy player who threatens to hold out the first 10 games, not the Skins. They are the ones, if the Skins really back off of this trade, who won't find many serious suitors for Briggs at the price they are asking.

But, sadly, the Bears are in control, because they know when the chips are down there is one inept front office (east of the Mississippi and west of the Atlantic Ocean) that will bail them out.

How can you remotely say that? The skins refused to entertain any counteroffer and did the opposite of what you've been whining about through all these threads on Briggs. I understand you're disappointed with the Skins' FO, but geez. You whine that we're going to sweeten the deal or buckle under to the Bears' demands for Briggs, the skins don't and you still whine about how we'll "bail them out". This is getting comical.

[firehawk157]

How can you remotely say that? The skins refused to entertain any counteroffer and did the opposite of what you've been whining about through all these threads on Briggs. I understand you're disappointed with the Skins' FO, but geez. You whine that we're going to sweeten the deal or buckle under to the Bears' demands for Briggs, the skins don't and you still whine about how we'll "bail them out". This is getting comical.
Apparently saying that it was an expiring offer and we weren't budging on the offer wasn't enough... He expects us to b***h-smack somebody when they tried to counter it.

[HanburgerBum]

they can pound sand.. or eat cake.. or whatever... just say NO


Who in our front office has the smarts and the will power to say "no"? It seems like the Skins have become junkies of the "flash" rather than substance.

[BIGSEF3]

From the Bears standpoint, though, they still believe there is a chance of making a deal for Briggs with the Redskins before the NFL draft.

what part of "one time offer that expires tuesday" do the bears not understand?

[akhhorus]

Who in our front office has the smarts and the will power to say "no"? It seems like the Skins have become junkies of the "flash" rather than substance.

Guess what, they just did today apparently. We rejected their counteroffer.

[shally]

Guess what, they just did today apparently. We rejected their counteroffer.

here here...

[firehawk157]

Why is this trade even still a debate???

[shally]

Why is this trade even still a debate???

boredom.. and nothing better going on right now

[HanburgerBum]

How can you remotely say that? The skins refused to entertain any counteroffer and did the opposite of what you've been whining about through all these threads on Briggs. I understand you're disappointed with the Skins' FO, but geez. You whine that we're going to sweeten the deal or buckle under to the Bears' demands for Briggs, the skins don't and you still whine about how we'll "bail them out". This is getting comical.


You are confident that the trade for Briggs is totally dead and buried? And, the Skins won't make a deal for him this offseason either as originally offered or with them sweetening the pot?

I sure am not.

[HanburgerBum]

Damn, what does this kind of pessimism accomplish? Our FO isn't the worst in the league.


I am usually very supportive of the team and the front office. But, if I see what I think is a dumb move, I will speak my mind.

[akhhorus]

You are confident that the trade for Briggs is totally dead and buried? And, the Skins won't make a deal for him this offseason either as originally offered or with them sweetening the pot?

I sure am not.

Let me see, the skins made an offer, rejected the bears counteroffer and told them "take it or leave it" and the bears turned it down. The trade isn't totally dead, but it sure is comatose. The Skins aren't willing to throw in Rocky at all and the Bears want him as part of it. I don't think anything short of Snyder attacking Lance Briggs in the Conservatory with the Candlestick will convince you that this trade is dead.

[frankez99]

Smoot signing: smart
Fletcher signing: smarter
Not trading for Briggs in any shape or form: smartest

Did I just use the word "smart" 3 times in regards to our FO? What the......?

I better log off, I have a feeling a meteorite is heading my way. See ya later!:inkston:

[shally]

You are confident that the trade for Briggs is totally dead and buried? And, the Skins won't make a deal for him this offseason either as originally offered or with them sweetening the pot?

I sure am not.

i think it is the bears who will blink. watch and seei f they do not take a first day linebacker in the draft.

nothing prevents them from trading briggs after the draft either

[Red Bear]

uugghhh, why are people still making up trade scenarios? atleast let those rest for now please....

personally i dont like the title of the PFT heading on the story. if the bears reportedly asked for mcintosh as people are saying, but yesterday it was reported the skins would only do the deal as originally proposed, then isnt it us that said thanks but no thanks, "get bent"?

[NCskinsfanatic]

uugghhh, why are people still making up trade scenarios? atleast let those rest for now please....

personally i dont like the title of the PFT heading on the story. if the bears reportedly asked for mcintosh as people are saying, but yesterday it was reported the skins would only do the deal as originally proposed, then isnt it us that said thanks but no thanks, "get bent"?
I thought that's exactly how it was, they upped the ante, we said "see intial offer" , the ball's in chicago's court...

[Keino]

Hate Hate Hate!

[HanburgerBum]

No term includes all three because they are completely different things. Sacks are nice, turnovers matter more. Washington's sack advantage doesn't overcome Briggs' massive turnover advantage.



I'm one of Lavar's biggest bashers here, and I think he deserved 2 of his pro bowls. You're so big on the sacks/turnover stats, Lavar had 17.5 sacks, 3 ints and 17 fumbles from 2001-2003. Thats pretty damn good(better than Marcus Washington).



A great RB is worth far more than a great CB. And its your opinion that we got fleeced, but you've shown that you look for nothing but what to whine about. Bailey wasn't going to stay here(unless we wanted to keep tagging him to keep him), so it was a 2nd for Portis. And the only other serious offer we got for Bailey was a 2nd rounder and Cory Redding. I'll take Portis.



No, you still miss the point. The point is that while we complain what the Skins FO does(also after 05, we were complimenting them and their style and this offseason has been like the offseason before 05), what they do automatically doesn't lead to failures. Some people would have you believe that things like the Duckett deal mattered at all to last season. Or the arch signing led to all the failures of the defense. Its moronic.



How about everyone? The players(who rarely get criticized here unless your name rhymes with Fark Frunell), the FO and the coaches. And Polian has a SB team, it took him what, 7-8 years to get there in Indy? Oh wait, the Duckett deal demoralized everyone on the skins to the point that they didn't want to tackle on defense :rolleyes:


Well, I think sacks are important too, especially if they occur on 3rd downs because the offense will regain possession. Regardless of the sack totals, if I were as sure as you are about Briggs being a pro bowl type of player here in DC, I wouldn't be adamantly against this trade. But, I am not sure he would be.

As for Lavar vs MW, Lavar probably missed more assignments in one season than MW would in a career.

In regard to Portis/Bailey, I take serious issue with the idea that a star RB is worth more than a star corner. There is consensus among NFL personnel people that the latter is harder to find. Did the Skins have an alternative to trading with Denver? Who knows? But, if you would recall, Portis was making noises at the time of not reporting unless he got a long-term deal from the Broncos. So, I think Denver was also at least somewhat under the gun. Washington should not have panicked and should have insisted on a one-for-one trade (or at least knock that 2nd rounder down to a 2nd day pick).

The Duckett trade and Arch signing may not have directly caused the 5-11 record, but you have to admit that the two draft choices spent in "renting" AJ for one season did nothing positive for the team. This utter waste of picks has a domino effect in that the team finds itself without enough choices in this draft. To address that problem, the FO will probably mortgage 2008 picks. In fact, mortgaging future choices has become routine here and it is not a smart way to run a front office.

Of course, the players are also at fault for the dismal season. But, who acquired them?

By the way, why is it when you express a negative thought (I presume you have done so at one time or another), it is constructive criticism. But, when someone else does it, it is whining?

[lakeskin]

Sweet. Now we can discuss things that really matter. Like trading up for Calvin Johnson...

[akhhorus]

Well, I think sacks are important too, especially if they occur on 3rd downs because the offense will regain possession. Regardless of the sack totals, if I were as sure as you are about Briggs being a pro bowl type of player here in DC, I wouldn't be adamantly against this trade. But, I am not sure he would be.

Fine, believe what you want. But we wouldn't be giving up any draft picks. I would still take the risk of Briggs and the risk of the 31st pick over the risk of the 6th pick(or a mid teens pick and a 3rd rounder) anyday.

As for Lavar vs MW, Lavar probably missed more assignments in one season than MW would in a career.

I disagree with that, Washington showed Lavar-esque ability to miss assignments last year.

In regard to Portis/Bailey, I take serious issue with the idea that a star RB is worth more than a star corner. There is consensus among NFL personnel people that the latter is harder to find.

Perhaps, but a Star RB is worth far more to a team. An opposing team can always throw at someone else.

Did the Skins have an alternative to trading with Denver?

There was one other legit trade rumor that would have been worse than what we did do.

Who knows? But, if you would recall, Portis was making noises at the time of not reporting unless he got a long-term deal from the Broncos. So, I think Denver was also at least somewhat under the gun. Washington should not have panicked and should have insisted on a one-for-one trade (or at least knock that 2nd rounder down to a 2nd day pick).

No, Portis said he wanted a new deal, not that he was going to hold out.

The Duckett trade and Arch signing may not have directly caused the 5-11 record, but you have to admit that the two draft choices spent in "renting" AJ for one season did nothing positive for the team.

No, I don't. I can't think of any negative impact that deal had with the skins in 06. Especially on defense.

This utter waste of picks has a domino effect in that the team finds itself without enough choices in this draft. To address that problem, the FO will probably mortgage 2008 picks. In fact, mortgaging future choices has become routine here and it is not a smart way to run a front office.

The skins have "mortgaged" a 1st(but got a first back for it), 2 2nds(but got a 3rd and a 2nd back for it), 2 3rds and 2 4ths. So, we basically have given up 1 2nd, 1 3rd and 2 4ths. What a catastrophe. :rolleyes:

Of course, the players are also at fault for the dismal season. But, who acquired them?

Right, since the FO got Washington, Springs, Daniels and Griff--all of whom had played very well for the skins, they must be to blame for those players' failures in 2006. What a joke.

By the way, why is it when you express a negative thought (I presume you have done so at one time or another), it is constructive criticism. But, when someone else does it, it is whining?

There's a difference between criticism over legit issues and your whining. Any doubts about this were ended when you kept whining that the skins would buckle under to the bears demands after they had done the complete opposite. You just want to complain about the skins and will use anything to continue this. If the skins traded the #6 for a 5th round pick straight up, it would be legit to complain about the FO. The Briggs deal--after its dead and buried? C'mon.

[skinsfan36]

good news now this trade is dead wait til monday when cj visits and we get the trading up thread to 48 pgs lol. it looks like we can trade down 2 spots and pick up a 3rd if atlanta is truly enamored with landry like all reports say. id be fine with that.

[cmdlost29]

You are right that the Bears are in control in the present situation. But, they shouldn't be. They have the Briggs problem, not the Skins. They are the ones with an unhappy player who threatens to hold out the first 10 games, not the Skins.

Lots of players threaten to sit out, but never do. The problem Briggs presents doesn't make sense in financial terms for the player. Briggs wants to get paid, he doesn't want out of Chicago. There is a huge huge difference between the two. If he didn't want out of Chicago he wouldn't have talked to them this weekend. He doesn't mind playing in Chicago, he just wants to get paid. His intentions are to get paid, its simple. So you tell this person if you play you will earn 7 million plus, but if you don't play you will earn only 2 million. What will this person do? My bet is he plays and nothing will get me to change that opinion until the first game of the season to see if he's not there in the lineup. A threat is just a threat.

They are the ones, if the Skins really back off of this trade, who won't find many serious suitors for Briggs at the price they are asking.

This is the only leverage the Skins had in this game of chicken. The longer this goes for Briggs the more likely Chicago is to cave in to his demands. So Chicago was presented with a possible solution from the Redskins for this problem and declined it. The counter offer included a LB which is the real problem they had with taking this offer, who will replace Briggs? So if this doesn't get fixed they will switch to a game of Chicken between Chicago and Briggs. Who will blink first? No other team will offer Chicago as good of a deal for Briggs that we did but that doesn't mean it was a bad offer for us. This trade was a Win-Win for both parties, but Chicago made it a Lose-Win for us and it wasn't done. Bravo front office for not making the deal!

But, sadly, the Bears are in control, because they know when the chips are down there is one inept front office (east of the Mississippi and west of the Atlantic Ocean) that will bail them out.

That's a really negative spin on this trade offer and especially our team. Are you a Skins fan? To me you have an unknown prospect in the #6 pick in one hand and in the other you have an ALL PRO player plus a high draft pick to pick an unknown prospect. Tell me why this was so bad of a trade for us?

Is out biggest need LB'er? NO. But that doesn't mean that this was a bad trade to make for us. Other teams pick the best player on the draft board when drafting all the time and don't just draft for need. We were doing that with that trade. If there was a known player that would fit us at #6 I don't think this would have ever happened but there isn't. That's the reality, not that Chicago thinks our front office is completely worthless and would fall for anything. I think Chicago knew we would reject this counter offer so they made it, it was a deal killer and they knew it.

I suspect that other NFL front offices don't nearly think we are the idiots many fans make us out to be, they might think we made some silly deals in the past but they also fear us because of negotiations with other players and there own.

[RedskinsDave]

Wow, this thread has a book about it:


http://www.jjsargent.com/finetooth/deadhorse2.jpg

[Piel Roja Mexicano]

at least Tiki is retaired (and Julius Jones is retarded), so... we most worry about hire someone who can stop the run??? yes!!! but that´s what the skins need...YOU GUYS WANNA KNOW WHAT DO I NEED!!!! i need a great DE to see more Qb sacks (in fact i wanna see tony romo 3 or 4 times whit that defensive over him). the ecuation it´s simple: more QB preasure equals to more turnovers...simple

And about briggs...mmm no way!!!! we must have fate in Rocky, cmo´n... he´s a talented guy, we need to create great players (cheap great players)

BUILD PLAYERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and beat dallas....

Saludos (hi) from Mexico!!!!

[BurgundyNGold]

at least Tiki is retaired (and Julius Jones is retarded), so... we most worry about hire someone who can stop the run??? yes!!! but that´s what the skins need...YOU GUYS WANNA KNOW WHAT DO I NEED!!!! i need a great DE to see more Qb sacks (in fact i wanna see tony romo 3 or 4 times whit that defensive over him). the ecuation it´s simple: more QB preasure equals to more turnovers...simple

And about briggs...mmm no way!!!! we must have fate in Rocky, cmo´n... he´s a talented guy, we need to create great players (cheap great players)

BUILD PLAYERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and beat dallas....

Saludos (hi) from Mexico!!!!
Welcome to the site! Sticke around and add to the conversation. HR is a great place for Redskin fans.

[shally]

at least Tiki is retaired (and Julius Jones is retarded), so... we most worry about hire someone who can stop the run??? yes!!! but that´s what the skins need...YOU GUYS WANNA KNOW WHAT DO I NEED!!!! i need a great DE to see more Qb sacks (in fact i wanna see tony romo 3 or 4 times whit that defensive over him). the ecuation it´s simple: more QB preasure equals to more turnovers...simple

And about briggs...mmm no way!!!! we must have fate in Rocky, cmo´n... he´s a talented guy, we need to create great players (cheap great players)

BUILD PLAYERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and beat dallas....

Saludos (hi) from Mexico!!!!

welcome.. this is a great site and you will meet some very nice folk here

come often. your opinions are always welcome

[Dept_of_Defense]

Redskin For A Life!

[bigcmr]

Just trying to read all these post are giveing me a headace. LOL
I personally dont like that trade.

[Redskinmayhem]

good news now this trade is dead wait til monday when cj visits and we get the trading up thread to 48 pgs lol. it looks like we can trade down 2 spots and pick up a 3rd if atlanta is truly enamored with landry like all reports say. id be fine with that.

I wouldn't mind that trade either....we might even be able to trade down again from that spot and still patch our needs while getting some more picks.

Welcome Piel Roja!!! Otro Latino-Americano aqui!!!

[Dolla Bill]

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i60/munchkin_2/Beat_Dead_HorseSanitysBlog.jpg

Make it stop already, can't this thread die :D

[DUCKIN_TACKLERS]

I wouldn't mind that trade either....we might even be able to trade down again from that spot and still patch our needs while getting some more picks.

Welcome Piel Roja!!! Otro Latino-Americano aqui!!!
With a trade like that we could still get our top choice on the D line and pick up an OG or LB if they must have one. Or maybe even move down twice(extremely difficult) and pick up a monster LB like Willis a DE toward the low end of round 1 and an OG. See how much more you can get for 6 then for Briggs.

[HanburgerBum]

Fine, believe what you want. But we wouldn't be giving up any draft picks. I would still take the risk of Briggs and the risk of the 31st pick over the risk of the 6th pick(or a mid teens pick and a 3rd rounder) anyday.



I disagree with that, Washington showed Lavar-esque ability to miss assignments last year.



Perhaps, but a Star RB is worth far more to a team. An opposing team can always throw at someone else.



There was one other legit trade rumor that would have been worse than what we did do.



No, Portis said he wanted a new deal, not that he was going to hold out.



No, I don't. I can't think of any negative impact that deal had with the skins in 06. Especially on defense.



The skins have "mortgaged" a 1st(but got a first back for it), 2 2nds(but got a 3rd and a 2nd back for it), 2 3rds and 2 4ths. So, we basically have given up 1 2nd, 1 3rd and 2 4ths. What a catastrophe. :rolleyes:



Right, since the FO got Washington, Springs, Daniels and Griff--all of whom had played very well for the skins, they must be to blame for those players' failures in 2006. What a joke.



There's a difference between criticism over legit issues and your whining. Any doubts about this were ended when you kept whining that the skins would buckle under to the bears demands after they had done the complete opposite. You just want to complain about the skins and will use anything to continue this. If the skins traded the #6 for a 5th round pick straight up, it would be legit to complain about the FO. The Briggs deal--after its dead and buried? C'mon.


In regarding to mortgaging future picks, I am not sure what you mean by "got a first back for it"? Are you referring to the first rounder (e.g. the one from Denver which was used to select Campbell) the Skins received for mortgaging future choices? That's not a correct way to evaluate the negative impact of mortgaging. Of course, Washington receives some value each time it trades away future picks. But, the problem is that the future picks are always in higher rounds than the current picks that are received. This difference in rounds, if continually practiced, means the Skins will always be drafting a round behind other teams. It is just not a smart way to draft over the long haul.

My continued "whining" (as you put it) about this Briggs trade is that I believe the Skins front office will eventually cave, whether it be for the initial offer or adding something like Lamar Marshall (or a 2008 pick). If I am proved wrong and this trade stays dead, I will gladly admit that I was wrong and I misjudged our front office. But, let's wait and see if I am right. And, if I am proved to be right, what will you admit?

As for the other issues, we will agree to disagree.

[S.Taylor36]

SHOULD THE REDSKINS SCREW UP ANOTHER DRAFT TO DEAL FOR LANCE BRIGGS? From Jeff, of King of Prussia, Pa.: "Can you come up with a theory as to why in the world it would make sense for the Redskins to trade for Lance Briggs? All of the throngs of diehard Redskins fans have become accustomed to our front office doing some wacky stuff, but the flirtation with trading for Lance Briggs takes the cake. It's indefensable. The Redskins are in good shape at linebacker and are desperate for help along the D-Line. So their answer is to trade the sixth pick in the draft for a disgruntled Pro Bowl linebacker looking for a big payday? To get Briggs and give up on Rocky MacIntosh, for whom they traded UP in last years draft to get? To sink outlandish amounts of money in our linebacking corps with Chris Cooley to sign to an extension next year? You'd figure losing Derrick Dockery in a similar manner would open their eyes. To completely ignore the identical failures of signing [Jeremiah] Trotter, [Jessie] Armstead, [Adam] Archuleta, etc.? How does the saying go? 'The definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.' The Redskins were able to put away the wallet up to this point this offseason, bring in only a few new players, not overhaul the roster or coaching staff. Then this Briggs thing comes out of nowhere. Redskins Nation is collectively holding its breath that this trade DOES NOT happen!''

Wow. That's an intelligent, passionate fan right there. Here's my view of the deal: You're right -- the Redskins don't have a crying need at linebacker, and I don't expect them to make a trade, swapping the sixth pick in the first round and either MacIntosh or Lemar Marshall for Briggs and the 31st pick in the draft. But I think you need to realize why the Redskins would ponder this move. The one thing you must remember is that Lance Briggs is an excellent football player, one of the five or six best linebackers in football. Last fall, watching the Bears, I saw how they used Briggs and Urlacher interchangeably at both middle and outside linebacker, and Briggs was every bit the factor in many of their big games that Urlacher was. He can take on guards in the hole and he can play side to side as well as almost any linebacker playing today. I think he's worth the big money. If I were the Redskins, I would certainly trade my sixth pick for Briggs and the 31st, but throwing in the good linebacker would kill the deal for me. I hope for your sake the deal in its current permutation doesn't get done.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/04/03/mmqb.te/1.html

[Red Bear]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/04/03/mmqb.te/1.html

yeah, but thats peter king(SI), not len pasquerelli aka pastabelly(ESPN) as you stated in the heading of your post

and it seems peter king feels the same way a lot of redskins fans feel.

[S.Taylor36]

yeah, but thats peter king(SI), not len pasquerelli aka pastabelly(ESPN) as you stated in the heading of your post

and it seems peter king feels the same way a lot of redskins fans feel.

My bad on that, sometimes I get confused.

[HanburgerBum]

Lots of players threaten to sit out, but never do. The problem Briggs presents doesn't make sense in financial terms for the player. Briggs wants to get paid, he doesn't want out of Chicago. There is a huge huge difference between the two. If he didn't want out of Chicago he wouldn't have talked to them this weekend. He doesn't mind playing in Chicago, he just wants to get paid. His intentions are to get paid, its simple. So you tell this person if you play you will earn 7 million plus, but if you don't play you will earn only 2 million. What will this person do? My bet is he plays and nothing will get me to change that opinion until the first game of the season to see if he's not there in the lineup. A threat is just a threat.



This is the only leverage the Skins had in this game of chicken. The longer this goes for Briggs the more likely Chicago is to cave in to his demands. So Chicago was presented with a possible solution from the Redskins for this problem and declined it. The counter offer included a LB which is the real problem they had with taking this offer, who will replace Briggs? So if this doesn't get fixed they will switch to a game of Chicken between Chicago and Briggs. Who will blink first? No other team will offer Chicago as good of a deal for Briggs that we did but that doesn't mean it was a bad offer for us. This trade was a Win-Win for both parties, but Chicago made it a Lose-Win for us and it wasn't done. Bravo front office for not making the deal!



That's a really negative spin on this trade offer and especially our team. Are you a Skins fan? To me you have an unknown prospect in the #6 pick in one hand and in the other you have an ALL PRO player plus a high draft pick to pick an unknown prospect. Tell me why this was so bad of a trade for us?

Is out biggest need LB'er? NO. But that doesn't mean that this was a bad trade to make for us. Other teams pick the best player on the draft board when drafting all the time and don't just draft for need. We were doing that with that trade. If there was a known player that would fit us at #6 I don't think this would have ever happened but there isn't. That's the reality, not that Chicago thinks our front office is completely worthless and would fall for anything. I think Chicago knew we would reject this counter offer so they made it, it was a deal killer and they knew it.

I suspect that other NFL front offices don't nearly think we are the idiots many fans make us out to be, they might think we made some silly deals in the past but they also fear us because of negotiations with other players and there own.


You are right that Briggs' threat to sit out 10 games is so far only a threat. He might very well report from day 1 when the reality of losing 4+ million hits him. In fact, I have posted that I think Briggs is stupid for even raising the stink. He should just take the 7.2 million as a franchised player and be quiet as a church mouse. He can always do his big contract next season. And, if the Bears tag him again, he will be making 8+ million for 2008 (he should be so unlucky). But, the point I was making is that Briggs is a problem right now for Chicago. The Skins should have the upper hand if they are the ones with a viable solution for the Bears.

I also agree that Chicago will unlikely find another team with an offer for Briggs nearly as good as the Washington offer. I think the Bears are dumb to have made any counter offer (regardless whether they have anyone to plug hole left by Briggs) and risk having the trade fall apart. They should have accepted the Skins offer the day it was made. Chicago could either promote a backup to take Briggs' place or go get a FA. Or, even offer Washington something like a 3rd or 4th rounder for Marshall at a later time.

Am I a Redskins fan? I guess you haven't been following this forum the last couple of years. I am a diehard fan and have been for over 50 years. But, that doesn't mean that I am a blind fan. When I see a move by our front office that I think is not smart, I will speak my piece. Right now, I don't have a lot of confidence in our front office. I dread it, but I believe the Briggs trade to the Skins will still be made between now and the draft.

The reason I am against the Briggs deal is that I have doubts that he will be the same player for Washington as he was for the Bears. I am aware that Briggs is generally regarded as one of the top OLBs in the League. But, he plays in a defense scheme in Chicago that is different from GW's scheme. Also, Briggs was surrounded by better defensive players and a better overall defense than what he will have here. On top of that, his number of sacks, interceptions, fumbles forced and recovered is good, but not spectacular. What he is is a tackling machine. But, is that enough to give up the difference between No. 6 and No. 31? No in my opinion.

Further, Briggs' presence would either prevent or retard the development of McIntosh, a player with a lot of promise who the team just paid two No. 2s to acquire. Does that make sense? Also, Washington needs to get younger. Hopefully, the No. 6 can be traded for multiple first-day picks towards that end.

[HanburgerBum]

i think it is the bears who will blink. watch and seei f they do not take a first day linebacker in the draft.

nothing prevents them from trading briggs after the draft either


I am hoping Chicago won't blink first or ever, because I don't want the Skins to make this deal. I am hoping the Bears stick to their guns and continue to refuse the initial Washington offer (despite what our front office says, I believe that initial offer will be on the table up until the draft).

Sure, Chicago can wait until after the draft to trade Briggs. But, it probably wouldn't be with the Skins, since the No. 6 pick would be gone and there would be no ammo to make the deal. If Washington mortgages 2008 picks for Briggs, some heads should roll in our front office.

[S.Taylor36]

It appears that we are still working on this deal.

LAKE FOREST, Ill. – While the Bears didn't place the franchise tag on linebacker Lance Briggs with the intention of trading him, the team as of Wednesday was still negotiating with the Washington Redskins about a possible deal.

Make it stop!!!!!

http://www.chicagobears.com/news/NewsStory.asp?STORY_ID=3253

[shally]

yeah, but thats peter king(SI), not len pasquerelli aka pastabelly(ESPN) as you stated in the heading of your post

and it seems peter king feels the same way a lot of redskins fans feel.

even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then

[shally]

It appears that we are still working on this deal.



Make it stop!!!!!

http://www.chicagobears.com/news/NewsStory.asp?STORY_ID=3253

i think the skins will leave the proposed swap of first rounders on the table until the draft..

[greatest2]

It appears that we are still working on this deal.



Make it stop!!!!!

http://www.chicagobears.com/news/NewsStory.asp?STORY_ID=3253


i guess the happiness of the deal falling apart on last a day or two

[Red Bear]

even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then

yes, but the nose is more keen than the eye

[HanburgerBum]

i think the skins will leave the proposed swap of first rounders on the table until the draft..


I am afraid you are probably right. So much for the idea that the offer is good only thru Tues. So much for the idea that our front office means what it says and sticks to its guns.

[akhhorus]

I am afraid you are probably right. So much for the idea that the offer is good only thru Tues. So much for the idea that our front office means what it says and sticks to its guns.

Again, let us know when there's any evidence the skins went back on their "word". I know you really want them to do what you've whined about so you can whine more, but that article isn't evidence there's anything going on. Especially when everyone else is saying its dead.

[HanburgerBum]

Again, let us know when there's any evidence the skins went back on their "word". I know you really want them to do what you've whined about so you can whine more, but that article isn't evidence there's anything going on. Especially when everyone else is saying its dead.


I sure hope you are right and that Shally and I are wrong.

[akhhorus]

I sure hope you are right and that Shally and I are wrong.

Shally isn't agreeing with you based on his comment. He said that he thinks the skins will leave their initial offer on the table unchanged until the draft, not that the skins would buckle to the bears demands or continue to negotiate the deal(which is what you think).

[shally]

Shally isn't agreeing with you based on his comment. He said that he thinks the skins will leave their initial offer on the table unchanged until the draft, not that the skins would buckle to the bears demands or continue to negotiate the deal(which is what you think).

exactly.. i think little happens up until right before the draft. the bears will continue to troll for better offers.
absent the skins opting to trade up or trade down before the draft (which i do not think will happen until AT the draft) the offer will likely stay there until the draft happens.

if the offer was bonafide then there is little harm in leaving it there. but i doubt seriously the skins will sweeten or change the offer at all

[GeneralDisorder]

So. Is the Briggs deal dead in the water...?

Great. I'm off to start a Sean Taylor thread...

[Red Bear]

Great. I'm off to start a Sean Taylor thread...

i dunno, but maybe soon someone will be posting an asante sameul to redskins rumor thread

Patriots | Samuel requests a trade
Wed, 4 Apr 2007 17:10:48 -0700

Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports New England Patriots CB Asante Samuel has requested a trade because he is unhappy with the way contract negotiations have gone.

[greatest2]

now i wouldn't mind a trade for asante samuel, 25, are the upswing. can digest a complicated scheme. Him and one of there 1st for briggs, for our number 6, would be a yes to me

this is different then briggs. We have a linebacker corps, we need a secondary. Springs is old and brittle, and carlos is a number 2. Smoot is an X factor. Samuel sign to long term deal would give us stability there for years to come

[HanburgerBum]

Shally isn't agreeing with you based on his comment. He said that he thinks the skins will leave their initial offer on the table unchanged until the draft, not that the skins would buckle to the bears demands or continue to negotiate the deal(which is what you think).


As I understand it, the offer from Washington was a "take it or leave it" and good only thru Tuesday. Since that deadline has passed, if the Skins keep their word, the offer should be off the table and there should be no further negotiation. What would you call it if the Bears decide next week to make the trade as originally proposed and Washington agrees to do it? Would our front office have gone back on its word then? Could we assume that our front office doesn't mean what it says? And, that other organizations know that regardless of what Washington says, they can always rely upon the Skins as a "fall back" plan?

To me, if Washington still keeps that originally offer on the table, it loses all credibility. And, it deserves to be the soft touch that everyone else picks on.

As far as I can tell, Shally (like me) thinks the Skins are keeping the originally offer open.

If I am wrong and our front office tells the Bears to go fly a kite when they come back next week to make the original trade, I will be the first to apologize. I will be very happy that our organization will have grown a pair and acquired some smarts as well.

[akhhorus]

As I understand it, the offer from Washington was a "take it or leave it" and good only thru Tuesday. Since that deadline has passed, if the Skins keep their word, the offer should be off the table and there should be no further negotiation. What would you call it if the Bears decide next week to make the trade as originally proposed and Washington agrees to do it? Would our front office have gone back on its word then? Could we assume that our front office doesn't mean what it says? And, that other organizations know that regardless of what Washington says, they can always rely upon the Skins as a "fall back" plan?

Considering that you were complaining that the skins would give in to the bears demands and give them more, you're just changing your criterium..again. And if the bears change their mind and make the deal the skins offered, its not continued negotiations. The bears buckled to our demands. And no, the FO wouldn't have gone back on their word. They told the Bears: take it or leave it(the tuesday part may or may not be true). I know it would deprive you of something to whine about, but so be it.

To me, if Washington still keeps that originally offer on the table, it loses all credibility. And, it deserves to be the soft touch that everyone else picks on.

What are you talking about?

As far as I can tell, Shally (like me) thinks the Skins are keeping the originally offer open.

Let me know when you have any evidence of that, besides Shally's opinion.

If I am wrong and our front office tells the Bears to go fly a kite when they come back next week to make the original trade, I will be the first to apologize. I will be very happy that our organization will have grown a pair and acquired some smarts as well.

No you won't. And you'll still complain about something.

[guinness4health]

As I understand it, the offer from Washington was a "take it or leave it" and good only thru Tuesday.

This has only been reported by John Clayton at ESPN, and it was on tuesday (day of the deadline) many days after the story broke....

being that this story has been reported by every news agency known to man and Clayton is the only one that ever mentioned a 'take it or leave it' deadline does not make it fact....

and even if it was a take it or leave it deal and the bears turn around and accept the current deal under our terms doesn't make us soft (at least in my opinion....and i guess akhhorus)....the front office make the offer so obviously they think it will make us a better team, so why would they reject it because of some arbitrary deadline????....how does that make us smart??

[ChiefPowhatan17]

I am just relieved that we didn't give up McIntosh or Marshall. Keep our guys, we don't need Briggs. Plus we can get value for our #6 on draft day. And, If we don't trade down, which is what I want to do, we can still get a great D-lineman. I don't think we need Briggs. Now that Holdman is gone, we can put Marshall or McIntosh in there and they will make tackles. Holdman was the weak link. No doubt.

[BluCollarGuy]

I am just relieved that we didn't give up McIntosh or Marshall. Keep our guys, we don't need Briggs. Plus we can get value for our #6 on draft day. And, If we don't trade down, which is what I want to do, we can still get a great D-lineman. I don't think we need Briggs. Now that Holdman is gone, we can put Marshall or McIntosh in there and they will make tackles. Holdman was the weak link. No doubt.
I agree with not giving up any more of ANYTHING for Briggs. This deal SHOULD be still on the table all the way up to the point at which we have to hand in our card on draft day. If we don't get any other offers to trade down, this would be a much better deal than JUST picking at the 6. IMO.

[Miller Time]

i think its rather clear from some of the posts here and in the 3 previous threads that some people are extremely upset about the thought of this deal.



Thanks for not answering the point I made.

He has answered you, you just don't like the answer. And it seems as though when someone is getting the better of you, they are met with some off color joke or vague reference indicating that you don't want to respond. This trade sucks, why wouldn't true fans tend to get a peeved about the possibility?

[BluCollarGuy]

He has answered you, you just don't like the answer. And it seems as though when someone is getting the better of you, they are met with some off color joke or vague reference indicating that you don't want to respond. This trade sucks, why wouldn't true fans tend to get a peeved about the possibility?
What about this trade would suck?

Briggs is a better LB than we have on the roster now, and we have an older guy at the mike. If Rocky can learn and handle the mike spot for LF, with Briggs on the outside, this could be one of the best LBing corpes in the league. And at 31, we could easily still get an execellent DLineman. What's not to like?

[bgforever]

I wouldn't use the Giants as a great example. Their new GM looks completely lost. They tried to deal for Al Wilson and eventually signed Kawicka Mitchell-both established MLBs-despite having Pierce

Hm, would love to have him back, as an "want to get even" attitude player on the Skins roster, at least next season :)

I can't see Mitchell or Wilson WANTING to be playing behind anyone in 2007, so you are right, that the Giants GM needs a couch and psycho therapy. Its not the same as the Skins trying to get Briggs, because Rocky lost a half or more of a season, with Lindsey lost in politics with his conflict w/GW and the FO. Lindsey wasn't as focused anyway all 2006. This impacted player development in "live" games. Rocky will have to do it all over again, so Briggs is important to something JG and GW have up their sleeves. Get this, they can still do it without him, but it would be so much easier and fit for quite a few years, if Briggs was in the mix.

If not, we have the corps to play at a very good level all season. I believe MW is quiet, because he's a pro and matured. He will make his noise on the field, not the press. No need to worry about him, Fletcher, Marshall. Marshall, unlike Mitchell and Wilson, is not necessarily a plugged in starter, even at his old position, but if we had to, he can do it and Proved it.

I agree with others, this is a April 27th decision, and this thread MUST DIE!!!!

[HanburgerBum]

Considering that you were complaining that the skins would give in to the bears demands and give them more, you're just changing your criterium..again. And if the bears change their mind and make the deal the skins offered, its not continued negotiations. The bears buckled to our demands. And no, the FO wouldn't have gone back on their word. They told the Bears: take it or leave it(the tuesday part may or may not be true). I know it would deprive you of something to whine about, but so be it.



What are you talking about?



Let me know when you have any evidence of that, besides Shally's opinion.



No you won't. And you'll still complain about something.


I am not changing any criteria. I read the Clayton report as stating the offer to be "take or leave it" and had a definite deadline (Tues, the day Chicago came back with the counter offer). In that case, the Briggs trade should be totally dead, no ifs and buts.

There at least three reasons the offer should be pulled off the table:

1) If our front office imposes a deadline and then makes the original deal after the deadline, it will no longer have credibility in the future. Other teams will rightfully expect that they can disregard any dealine set by Washington.

2) If the original offer is kept open, the Skins would be twisting in the wind. Not knowing whether Briggs will be acquired, Washington's offseason plans may stall and the team may lose opportunities to make other trades.

3) If the orginal offer is maintained, the Bears can now go shopping for a better trade from another team. They know the worse that can happen is making the deal with Washington. Why should the Skins provide that cushion for Chicago?

[HanburgerBum]

This has only been reported by John Clayton at ESPN, and it was on tuesday (day of the deadline) many days after the story broke....

being that this story has been reported by every news agency known to man and Clayton is the only one that ever mentioned a 'take it or leave it' deadline does not make it fact....

and even if it was a take it or leave it deal and the bears turn around and accept the current deal under our terms doesn't make us soft (at least in my opinion....and i guess akhhorus)....the front office make the offer so obviously they think it will make us a better team, so why would they reject it because of some arbitrary deadline????....how does that make us smart??


I think it would be a mistake to keep the offer open. Please see my post No. 346 in response to AKH in this regard.

[colkurtz]

This offer is in limbo - fortunately. I agree with Shally, everything will stay static until close to the draft day. Any deals will be made when the draft pressure increases.

The FO continues to address most of the the defense's problems - LB, CB, etc through FA. The main issue - the DL has not had one change. To my mind that means that they will focus the draft at DE or DT. There may be even two draft pciks for the DL this year.

[James F. Quinn]

IMHO no deal in the NFL is ever completely dead. Any GM can pick up the phone or send an email repeating the previous offer or enhancing it. I've heard that GMs are on the phone all day talking to other GMs (or GM-like entities) just trying out possibilities.

This deal might have gone down as our 6th for Briggs and their 31st (what was reported); what killed it was their dubious belief that there should be more from us. Considering our track record, that wasn't all that surprising. Come Draft Day morning, barring other, better deals, DanJoe Cerratgibbs might still be interested in the original offer.

[bergiemoore]

IMHO no deal in the NFL is ever completely dead. Any GM can pick up the phone or send an email repeating the previous offer or enhancing it. I've heard that GMs are on the phone all day talking to other GMs (or GM-like entities) just trying out possibilities.

This deal might have gone down as our 6th for Briggs and their 31st (what was reported); what killed it was their dubious belief that there should be more from us. Considering our track record, that wasn't all that surprising. Come Draft Day morning, barring other, better deals, DanJoe Cerratgibbs might still be interested in the original offer.

:lol1:

How about : "DaVinjoe CerSnyderGibbs" or "Vinjodan Snygiberrato"

[colkurtz]

IMHO no deal in the NFL is ever completely dead. Any GM can pick up the phone or send an email repeating the previous offer or enhancing it. I've heard that GMs are on the phone all day talking to other GMs (or GM-like entities) just trying out possibilities.

This deal might have gone down as our 6th for Briggs and their 31st (what was reported); what killed it was their dubious belief that there should be more from us. Considering our track record, that wasn't all that surprising. Come Draft Day morning, barring other, better deals, DanJoe Cerratgibbs might still be interested in the original offer.

Nothing is over about this deal - it's frozen in ice, unless he re-signs with Chicago or the draft is completed. So unfortunately this thread won't die! :banghead:

[James F. Quinn]

:lol1:

How about : "DaVinjoe CerSnyderGibbs" or "Vinjodan Snygiberrato"
Isn't one of them on American Idol?