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

[PennSkinsFan]

Here is a blurb from East Coast Sports (http://www.eastcoastsportsnews.com/2007draft.html)

04/02...The Chicago Bears will present the Redskins with a counteroffer today in the latest Lance Briggs saga...the counteroffer will reportedly ask the Skins to throw in a player like LB Lemar Marshall to complete the deal...if the Redskins accept the proposal...it will become a done deal with teams switching picks in the first round...even if the deal falls through the Redskins are determined to move out of the sixth pick and would love to make a deal with the Lions for the second overall pick to select Calvin Johnson...however...the Redskins lack the type of ammunition ( 2007 Draft picks) that would be required to swing the deal...unless...they include their first round pick in 2008 as part of the trade...Washington has other options like trading down and could find a trading partner in the Falcons who are said to be enamored with LaRon Landry...if the Falcons are determined to take Landry it would be in their best interests to swing a Draft day deal with the Skins or the Bears (who might own the pick if the Briggs deal goes through) because Landry might also be on the Vikings radar screen at #7...the Falcons have extra picks due to the Schaub trade and would only have to move up 200 points ( a third round pick) to swing the deal...I've had that trade included in My Mock since last week.

[dj_stouty]

See First thread HERE (http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=40336).
See Second thread HERE (http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=40408).
See Third thread HERE (http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=40422).

Continue your discussion...

[smoak]

However when the Redskins do a trade up they justify it by comparing it to the Draft Value Chart (as Gibbs did rightfully so with the Campbell trade). You cant justify your moves by one standard and throw them out when it does not fit your purpose.

Quite simple, if you are not getting value for your pick, or even close to it, don't trade and pick the best player on your board when it comes around. You will still better your team and if no one gives you value for your pick you will keep a competitor from doing what they want, which in the end is good for you as well.

??? Nobody is saying ignore the chart or doing anything remotely close to throwing it out? We're simply stating that the demand may not be there. People on the boards act like if they can figure out a reasonable offer then we should be able to trade down.... It isn't remotely that easy.

[bergiemoore]

See First thread HERE (http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=40336).
See Second thread HERE (http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=40408).
See Third thread HERE (http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=40422).

Continue your discussion...

Christ, won't someone make a decision one way or another so that we might speculate ad nauseam about something else?

[MONK_in_HOF]

Trading down 2 spots in the first round to acquire a 3rd rounder seems like a great deal to me. I hope they keep that #6 pick until draft day so they can see what it is really worth. I can't imagine the value would decrease between now and then.

[redcayman]

I'll admit I was in favor of the first trade the 6th for Briggs and the 31st but this is out of hand. No way in the world would I do this deal. Why should we have to sweeten this with the actual young talent we still have on the roster? I truly hope that the FO is smart enough to walk away. I agree wait till draft day and see what shakes out we might be able to make out like bandits for a change.

[BurgundyNGold]

Trading down 2 spots in the first round to acquire a 3rd rounder seems like a great deal to me. I hope they keep that #6 pick until draft day so they can see what it is really worth. I can't imagine the value would decrease between now and then.
This is exactly correct. We can do this deal up until we're on the clock. There is no reason to trade the pick away now.

[dj_stouty]

Christ, won't someone make a decision one way or another so that we might speculate ad nauseam about something else?

No kidding. We have hit 1,273 posts so far in this discussion...

[SpicyMcHaggis]

If we are so desperate to trade up to get Johnson (which I doubt), we should have just tanked the useless New Orleans game...I would much rather have done that then to trade away a first rounder next year.

[BurgundyNGold]

If we are so desperate to trade up to get Johnson (which I doubt), we should have just tanked the useless New Orleans game...I would much rather have done that then to trade away a first rounder next year.
And I would prefer to have a team that would never tank a game and only drafts what it needs. ;)

[SpicyMcHaggis]

And I would prefer to have a team that would never tank a game and only drafts what it needs. ;)
Same here..in an ideal world that would be the case..but if we really are that desperate to get him, the only ammo we have to trade up is next year's first. And that better NOT happen.

[frankez99]

I am almost completely numb on this Briggs situation since it has completely dominated Redskins-land as of late. It is almost to the point where I don't care anymore either way....but.....

A. I'd be toleratant of a 6th for 31st swap for Briggs....

B. I'd be disappointed but tolerant for a 6th and McIntosh for their 31st and Briggs. Disappointed because we already ponied up picks to get McIntosh last season, BUT tolerant because Briggs is no doubt a superior LB.....

C. I'd be sick to my stomach if we gave up a 6th and Golston for their 31st and Briggs. Sick because we need DL help (not LB help) and Golston is young and on the way up. I really want Golston to stay.

D. I'd be sick to my stomach and I'd probably puke up my large intestine if we give up our 6th and ANY player for Briggs, and not get their 31st. No explanation needed.

What is funny is that league-wide GMs are already saying that the 6th for the 31st and Briggs is borderline a rip-off and we are now we are going to possibly throw in players and possibly even entertain the thought of NOT getting their 31st??

[shally]

This is exactly correct. We can do this deal up until we're on the clock. There is no reason to trade the pick away now.

agree.. let the bears sweat.. give rosenhaus a forum for several weeks

[smoak]

If we are so desperate to trade up to get Johnson (which I doubt), we should have just tanked the useless New Orleans game...I would much rather have done that then to trade away a first rounder next year.

Sorry, but I firmly believe that losing never benefits anything. You always "play to win the game".

[shally]

I am almost completely numb on this Briggs situation since it has completely dominated Redskins-land as of late. It is almost to the point where I don't care anymore either way....but.....

A. I'd be toleratant of a 6th for 31st swap for Briggs....

B. I'd be disappointed but tolerant for a 6th and McIntosh for their 31st and Briggs. Disappointed because we already ponied up picks to get McIntosh last season, BUT tolerant because Briggs is no doubt a superior LB.....

C. I'd be sick to my stomach if we gave up a 6th and Golston for their 31st and Briggs. Sick because we need DL help (not LB help) and Golston is young and on the way up. I really want Golston to stay.

D. I'd be sick to my stomach and I'd probably puke up my large intestine if we give up our 6th and ANY player for Briggs, and not get their 31st. No explanation needed.

What is funny is that league-wide GMs are already saying that the 6th for the 31st and Briggs is borderline a rip-off and we are now we are going to possibly throw in players and possibly even entertain the thought of NOT getting their 31st??

BS !! briggs is a 1 year player fo rthe bears, who wont offer him a long term deal.

how much is that worth ?? clearly no greater than a mid 1st, at best.

just walk away from the deal now

[bwparker]

No kidding. We have hit 1,273 posts so far in this discussion...
This continued thread had the potential to go down in history as hR's longest, ultimately-forgettable-thread if the trade doesn't go down. Kinda funny.

[akhhorus]

I am almost completely numb on this Briggs situation since it has completely dominated Redskins-land as of late. It is almost to the point where I don't care anymore either way....but.....

Why is the question, it doesn't even look close to being considered, much less happening.

What is funny is that league-wide GMs are already saying that the 6th for the 31st and Briggs is borderline a rip-off and we are now we are going to possibly throw in players and possibly even entertain the thought of NOT getting their 31st??

Who is saying anything you are getting angry over? The speculation is that the Bears would ask for us to throw in a player. There is NOTHING out there that we are even considering doing that, NOR is there ANYTHING except speculation that it would be Golston, Marshall or Rocky. That is PURE speculation. Good lawd: why are we getting all upset about this counteroffer until the bears actually make one.

[lakeskin]

Shouldn't we be the team with all of the leverage? Maybe we can throw in Jason Campbell, sweeten the pot. I mean, c'mon. He's not even their best defensive player, and they act like they're doing us a favor.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Sorry, but I firmly believe that losing never benefits anything. You always "play to win the game".
Exactly what benefit did winning the Saints game get us? I wouldn't even be bringing this up if the whole "trading up" thing hadn't been mentioned time and time again...even by Gibbs himself. And since we have nothing to give except next year's first, I ask you this..which of the two would you prefer:
1)Having lost the Saints game, finished 4-12, and picking Johnson with the 3rd or 4th pick.
2)Our current situation, and trading away this year's and next year's firsts to move up to at least #3 to get Johnson.
You would sacrifice next year's first round pick to preserve the useless win against the Saints?

[smittyskin]

Exactly what benefit did winning the Saints game get us? I wouldn't even be bringing this up if the whole "trading up" thing hadn't been mentioned time and time again...even by Gibbs himself. And since we have nothing to give except next year's first, I ask you this..which of the two would you prefer:
1)Having lost the Saints game, finished 4-12, and picking Johnson with the 3rd or 4th pick.
2)Our current situation, and trading away this year's and next year's firsts to move up to at least #3 to get Johnson.
You would sacrifice next year's first round pick to preserve the useless win against the Saints?


I don't understand why everyone thinks we are going to move up to get CJ. I know what Gibbs said and all but lets be realistic. We have too many holes and serious issues with our overall team age and depth. We couldn't possibly be stupid enough to do this, could we?

[Swirvi]

Exactly what benefit did winning the Saints game get us? I wouldn't even be bringing this up if the whole "trading up" thing hadn't been mentioned time and time again...even by Gibbs himself. And since we have nothing to give except next year's first, I ask you this..which of the two would you prefer:
1)Having lost the Saints game, finished 4-12, and picking Johnson with the 3rd or 4th pick.
2)Our current situation, and trading away this year's and next year's firsts to move up to at least #3 to get Johnson.
You would sacrifice next year's first round pick to preserve the useless win against the Saints?

Dear friend,

If you remember from last season, we were still ACTUALLY in the playoff race before the Saints game. We tried to win that game because we weren't mathematically eliminated. I would NEVER root for my team to lose a game to better themselves for a draft position. And it is even more dispicable if said team is still fighting for a playoff spot, no matter how remote the chances.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

I don't understand why everyone thinks we are going to move up to get CJ. I know what Gibbs said and all but lets be realistic. We have too many holes and serious issues with our overall team age and depth. We couldn't possibly be stupid enough to do this, could we?
I agree with you 100%, but honestly, nothing would surprise me at this point.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Dear friend,

If you remember from last season, we were still ACTUALLY in the playoff race before the Saints game. We tried to win that game because we weren't mathematically eliminated. I would NEVER root for my team to lose a game to better themselves for a draft position. And it is even more dispicable if said team is still fighting for a playoff spot, no matter how remote the chances.
Would you care to explain exactly how we were in any kind of race at 4-9 with a 1-4 division record?

[shally]

I agree with you 100%, but honestly, nothing would surprise me at this point.

when snyder gets an itch... you never know

the thing is that he has 2 major itches !!

he also wants to trade up for shot at CJ...

[spanishskinfan]

I don't like this trade. We don't need elite linebackers (we have Fletcher, Washington, McIntosh, Marshall), we need defensive line help.

Look at Ray Lewis. A year ago he seemed done, but then they got Ngata in the draft and is a much better player now because Ngata takes the blocks off him and he is free to move from sideline to sideline.

I understand the argument that with the 6th pick you get an unproven rookie, ok, I understand if we trade the pick for a proven player and a lower pick, but don't trade him for a player you don't need, trade him for a defensive line player and a lower pick, not for a linebacker (even if Briggs is a great linebacker). What kind of message are you sending to McIntosh?

I would trade the 6th pick for a player like Jared Allen, 25 years, DE of the Chiefs ( 163 tackles 27.5 sacks, 10 FF, 8 FR and 15 passes defended in three years) who is in the same situation of Briggs but is a player we really need, and and their first round pick (23rd).

http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/492877

That would be a good trade for the redskins. We could get a young proven top ten DE (Jared Allen) and the 23rd pick (then we could draft Reggie Nelson, Jarrett, Bowe or a DT).

HTTR!!

[BurgundyNGold]

I am almost completely numb on this Briggs situation since it has completely dominated Redskins-land as of late. It is almost to the point where I don't care anymore either way....but.....

A. I'd be toleratant of a 6th for 31st swap for Briggs....

B. I'd be disappointed but tolerant for a 6th and McIntosh for their 31st and Briggs. Disappointed because we already ponied up picks to get McIntosh last season, BUT tolerant because Briggs is no doubt a superior LB.....

C. I'd be sick to my stomach if we gave up a 6th and Golston for their 31st and Briggs. Sick because we need DL help (not LB help) and Golston is young and on the way up. I really want Golston to stay.

D. I'd be sick to my stomach and I'd probably puke up my large intestine if we give up our 6th and ANY player for Briggs, and not get their 31st. No explanation needed.

What is funny is that league-wide GMs are already saying that the 6th for the 31st and Briggs is borderline a rip-off and we are now we are going to possibly throw in players and possibly even entertain the thought of NOT getting their 31st??
A) Would still be a bad deal for somebody we don't need (unless we're not being told something about Marcus' injury or Rocky's development).

B) Would be a disasterous admission of stupidity for the MacIntosh maneuver last year. Redskins Nation would have every right to call for a no-confidence vote on the FO -- Gibbs included.

C) A worse variation of A.

D) I don't see how that could or would happen. But then again, I don't iunderstand why the team is entertaining the Briggs idea as it is.

[frankez99]

Who is saying anything you are getting angry over? The speculation is that the Bears would ask for us to throw in a player. There is NOTHING out there that we are even considering doing that, NOR is there ANYTHING except speculation that it would be Golston, Marshall or Rocky. That is PURE speculation. Good lawd: why are we getting all upset about this counteroffer until the bears actually make one.

Very true. Nobody is SAYING anything.....but the fact that it is out there means SOMETHING. This may be speculation, but I'm thinking the "insiders" know a little more than me and you, correct? Or am I mistaken?

Here are the facts:

1. We sent a proposal
2. They are sending a counter which will not be the same as the one we sent
3. I'm not going to be angry, regardless

Something is going on. We can either debate what the "insiders" are saying (or speculating), or we can sit in here and not talk about anything until it happens. Which sounds like more fun?

Thus is the reason why, "Good lawd: that is why I am getting all upset about this counteroffer until the bears actually make one".:rolleyes:

[SpicyMcHaggis]

A) Would still be a bad deal for somebody we don't need (unless we're not being told something about Marcus' injury or Rocky's development).

B) Would be a disasterous admission of stupidity for the MacIntosh maneuver last year. Redskins Nation would have every right to call for a no-confidence vote on the FO -- Gibbs included.

C) A worse variation of A.

D) I don't see how that could or would happen. But then again, I don't iunderstand why the team is entertaining the Briggs idea as it is.
A) I could live with the deal.

B) Agreed.

C) That would be as stupid as point B.

D)Agreed.

[akhhorus]

Very true. Nobody is SAYING anything.....but the fact that it is out there means SOMETHING. This may be speculation, but I'm thinking the "insiders" know a little more than me and you, correct? Or am I mistaken?

Except that the speculation about the other players the bears might want was nothing but from the writer of the story in the post. Not from "insiders". And believe that a majority of the story has been rosenhaus trying to create a market for Briggs, and not the bears/skins actually discussing much.

Here are the facts:

1. We sent a proposal
2. They are sending a counter which will not be the same as the one we sent
3. I'm not going to be angry, regardless

Something is going on. We can either debate what the "insiders" are saying (or speculating), or we can sit in here and not talk about anything until it happens. Which sounds like more fun?

No, it isn't. When there's something, we can speculate. Otherwise its ridiculous. And again: how much of this is real rumors, and how much is rosenhaus? So much of this ongoing rumor gets reported, then retracted or contradicted.

Thus is the reason why, "Good lawd: that is why I am getting all upset about this counteroffer until the bears actually make one".:rolleyes:

But why? You're getting extremely pissed over just about nothing. I really don't get why this trade is engendering this much discussion, much less this supposed counter-offer.

[LadyNRedskinsfan]

chicago is out of their minds. forget them and lets move on please! (possibly)trade down with atlanta and get an extra pick. i hope the FO stays smart with this deal.

[Warpath23]

The deal shouldnt be made no matter what. Its dumb, we have Rocky & Marshall. Whats the damn point seriously? Keep the 6th & if we can trade down & pick up a 2nd or 3rd that would be picture perfect.

I'm sick of the dumb off season moves. We might as well have kept Casserly

[Redskin4Life]

I'd throw in Mark Brunell. he might wind up as their starter! LOL

Actually we could offer a pretty good QB that's extremely knowledgable in the Saunders system...Todd Collins. I have no qualms about including him....

[frankez99]

Except that the speculation about the other players the bears might want was nothing but from the writer of the story in the post. Not from "insiders". And I believe that a majority of the story has been rosenhaus trying to create a market for Briggs, and not the bears/skins actually discussing much.

Hey, isn't that speculating? See how that works?:)

No, it isn't. When there's something, we can speculate. Otherwise its ridiculous. And again: how much of this is real rumors, and how much is rosenhaus? So much of this ongoing rumor gets reported, then retracted or contradicted.

Who knows what is real and what isn't. But if it is put in the press, it is going to be talked about....that is what these forums are for, correct? If you don't want to chime in or the Briggs situation is getting to you, then don't read or post on the subject! (but please do because I do respect your opinons)

But why? You're getting extremely pissed over just about nothing. I really don't get why this trade is engendering this much discussion, much less this supposed counter-offer.

Whoa, "extremely pissed"? Me? No way akh! "Perplexed" is the word you should use. And I think this trade is garnering so much discussion is because we have such a low total of picks, and this 6th pick in the first round is our only firepower. Is it possible that some of us are getting a little "irked" about our apparent lack-of-concern when it comes to developing young talent through the draft?

[greatest2]

I don't like this trade. We don't need elite linebackers (we have Fletcher, Washington, McIntosh, Marshall), we need defensive line help.

Look at Ray Lewis. A year ago he seemed done, but then they got Ngata in the draft and is a much better player now because Ngata takes the blocks off him and he is free to move from sideline to sideline.

I understand the argument that with the 6th pick you get an unproven rookie, ok, I understand if we trade the pick for a proven player and a lower pick, but don't trade him for a player you don't need, trade him for a defensive line player and a lower pick, not for a linebacker (even if Briggs is a great linebacker). What kind of message are you sending to McIntosh?

I would trade the 6th pick for a player like Jared Allen, 25 years, DE of the Chiefs ( 163 tackles 27.5 sacks, 10 FF, 8 FR and 15 passes defended in three years) who is in the same situation of Briggs but is a player we really need, and and their first round pick (23rd).

http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/492877

That would be a good trade for the redskins. We could get a young proven top ten DE (Jared Allen) and the 23rd pick (then we could draft Reggie Nelson, Jarrett, Bowe or a DT).

HTTR!!


is there anyway we can send this to the snyder and gibbs company????

[CNYSkinFan]

Is anyone else scared that somehow encver will get involved in a three way deal? I can hear Vinny squeal with pleasure now.

[akhhorus]

Hey, isn't that speculating? See how that works?:)

Give me a sec, I'll find the crickets link ;)


Who knows what is real and what isn't. But if it is put in the press, it is going to be talked about....that is what these forums are for, correct? If you don't want to chime in or the Briggs situation is getting to you, then don't read or post on the subject! (but please do because I do respect your opinons)

Ive chimed in many times on it and will continue to. I just find it hilarious that we're getting all upset over something that is as substantial as smoke right now.


Whoa, "extremely pissed"? Me? No way akh! "Perplexed" is the word you should use. And I think this trade is garnering so much discussion is because we have such a low total of picks, and this 6th pick in the first round is our only firepower. Is it possible that some of us are getting a little "irked" about our apparent lack-of-concern when it comes to developing young talent through the draft?

And if we were giving up on Rocky or not getting picks back, you would have a point. We would still be in the first round and this trade doesn't mean we're giving up on Rocky.

[Redskin4Life]

Here is a blurb from East Coast Sports (http://www.eastcoastsportsnews.com/2007draft.html)
This trade scenario is interesting... I would say we trade down with ATL and pick up their 3rd (75th pick) so they can take Landry. Then turn around and trade the 8 to New England for their two first (exactly the same value pointswise) -- 24th and 28th -- so they can pick up Pat Willis.

With our three picks, we could take:

24th - Chris Houston, CB
28th - Ben Grubbs, OG
75th - Ikaika Alama-Francis, DE

[CNYSkinFan]

i like the idea of picking up a third. Cooley and Dockery were thirds and served our team well.

Just say no to Chicago

[frankez99]

Give me a sec, I'll find the crickets link ;)

http://www.naturesongs.com/pallid1.wav

Ive chimed in many times on it and will continue to. I just find it hilarious that we're getting all upset over something that is as substantial as smoke right now.

You have chimed in on this? Seriously? I never noticed.:rolleyes: And once again, nobody seems to be getting "upset"....unless you have the ability to decipher emotions through cyberspace. Jeeeeeezzzzzeeeee.

And if we were giving up on Rocky or not getting picks back, you would have a point. We would still be in the first round and this trade doesn't mean we're giving up on Rocky.

Here is a deal. Let us debate the "speculation".....and we promise not to get "upset".

[Redskin4Life]

i like the idea of picking up a third. Cooley and Dockery were thirds and served our team well.

Just say no to Chicago
I'm done with Chicago.... but if one good thing came from all of this: the league knows EMPHATICALLY that we want to trade our pick so call us draft day!!!!

[akhhorus]

You have chimed in on this? Seriously? I never noticed.:rolleyes: And once again, nobody seems to be getting "upset"....unless you have the ability to decipher emotions through cyberspace. Jeeeeeezzzzzeeeee.

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.

Here is a deal. Let us debate the "speculation".....and we promise not to get "upset".

Thanks for not answering the point I made.

[CNYSkinFan]

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.
I am...and I thinbk I have every right to be upset. It is a typical "Get what you dont need" Snyder move. LLoyd, Arch, Sanders, Trotter, George, Duckett..... the list goes on. Sure Snyder has pulled some good moves as well. I give him lots of credit for cap management and fiscal responsibility when it comes to the Redskin bottome line. But this a fantasy owner type move. The fact we are entertaining offers or even making them to me means we are dropping the whole 'build with what you have" approach the FO claimed they were doing this year.

[akhhorus]

I am...and I thinbk I have every right to be upset. It is a typical "Get what you dont need" Snyder move. LLoyd, Arch, Sanders, Trotter, George, Duckett..... the list goes on. Sure Snyder has pulled some good moves as well. I give him lots of credit for cap management and fiscal responsibility when it comes to the Redskin bottome line. But this a fantasy owner type move. The fact we are entertaining offers or even making them to me means we are dropping the whole 'build with what you have" approach the FO claimed they were doing this year.

I disagree with your final point here. This may have been Rosenhaus asking if they would consider it, but until they actually make the deal for Briggs, talking about it doesn't undermine that they're taking a more subdued approach to the offseason. They really didn't bring in any big name FA for even visits(except for Davis, but didn't seem serious about him) and any potential deal for Briggs still seems way off.

[frankez99]

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.

Cool....now I know where you stand. You don't like people getting upset, how nice. Don't let it get to you man. Allow people to open up and express themselves. As far as the ones getting upset, I'm glad you are there for those types (I guess?).

Thanks for not answering the point I made.

You welcome. (uhhhhh, what point exactly?)

Ladies and gentlemen, it has come to my conclusion that akh is not a fan of "speculation" or debating the topic therein. (and I mean no disrespect akh).

Take care.

[dj_stouty]

Exactly what benefit did winning the Saints game get us? I wouldn't even be bringing this up if the whole "trading up" thing hadn't been mentioned time and time again...even by Gibbs himself. And since we have nothing to give except next year's first, I ask you this..which of the two would you prefer:
1)Having lost the Saints game, finished 4-12, and picking Johnson with the 3rd or 4th pick.
2)Our current situation, and trading away this year's and next year's firsts to move up to at least #3 to get Johnson.
You would sacrifice next year's first round pick to preserve the useless win against the Saints?

I want to see the Skins win. Period. We don't sit on HR and create 1,000s of posts every season to watch our team lose. Tanking games for the sake of getting a better draft pick is lousy and unprofessional, and something that Joe Gibbs would never condone. Plus, it isn't fair to the fanbase...

Plus, it doesn't do any good to go back in hindsight and wish games were won/lost due to our current situation. Its pointless, and quite frankly, impossible...

Why the Saints game? Why not sacrifice the entire season for the following year's #1? :rolleyes:

[shally]

The deal shouldnt be made no matter what. Its dumb, we have Rocky & Marshall. Whats the damn point seriously? Keep the 6th & if we can trade down & pick up a 2nd or 3rd that would be picture perfect.

I'm sick of the dumb off season moves. We might as well have kept Casserly

ouch !!!

hasnt happened yet.. keep the faith a little longer

[spanishskinfan]

I am...and I thinbk I have every right to be upset. It is a typical "Get what you dont need" Snyder move. LLoyd, Arch, Sanders, Trotter, George, Duckett..... the list goes on. Sure Snyder has pulled some good moves as well. I give him lots of credit for cap management and fiscal responsibility when it comes to the Redskin bottome line. But this a fantasy owner type move. The fact we are entertaining offers or even making them to me means we are dropping the whole 'build with what you have" approach the FO claimed they were doing this year.

If they finally do this trade, Y will be very upset too.

Do you think Gibbs like this move?

[akhhorus]

Cool....now I know where you stand. You don't like people getting upset, how nice. Don't let it get to you man. Allow people to open up and express themselves. As far as the ones getting upset, I'm glad you are there for those types (I guess?).

I'm not trying to prevent any discussion whatsoever, I just find it sad/funny that people are getting upset over next to nothing. Spin it any way you to.

You welcome. (uhhhhh, what point exactly?)

Thanks for reading it in the first place(or not). That you claimed that this trade is evidence that we're not building through the draft(and this might be one of the reasons people are getting upset over it), and I pointed out that we would still be getting a 1st round pick in this supposed trade. And that just because we got briggs, doesn't mean we're giving up on Rocky. Both of those points undermine yours and you just ignored my comment.

Ladies and gentlemen, it has come to my conclusion that akh is not a fan of "speculation" or debating the topic therein. (and I mean no disrespect akh). Take care.

Have you bothered to read anything I've written? I don't think so.

[shally]

If they finally do this trade, Y will be very upset too.

Do you think Gibbs like this move?

it wont happen without his express approval

[bwparker]

I want to see the Skins win. Period. We don't sit on HR and create 1,000s of posts every season to watch our team lose. Tanking games for the sake of getting a better draft pick is lousy and unprofessional, and something that Joe Gibbs would never condone. Plus, it isn't fair to the fanbase...

Plus, it doesn't do any good to go back in hindsight and wish games were won/lost due to our current situation. Its pointless, and quite frankly, impossible...

Why the Saints game? Why not sacrifice the entire season for the following year's #1? :rolleyes:
Just to continue on this quiet side topic:

I think the problem with late season tanking is what it does to morale. We can argue over draft position, but it comes down to this: You either send the message that winning is the ultimate goal at all times and you can never back off/never give up or you send the message that winning is NOT the ultimate goal and its ok to give less than your all at times if you can justify it for the greater good. Its a dangerous mentality to allow your team to see. When it does really matter they don't have it drilled into their head "winning at all costs, at all times" somewhere there is lurking the idea "losing a little now could help later."

I don't think thats a good idea.

[warpaint]

Cool....now I know where you stand. You don't like people getting upset, how nice. Don't let it get to you man. Allow people to open up and express themselves. As far as the ones getting upset, I'm glad you are there for those types (I guess?).



You welcome. (uhhhhh, what point exactly?)

Ladies and gentlemen, it has come to my conclusion that akh is not a fan of "speculation" or debating the topic therein. (and I mean no disrespect akh).

Take care.
why does everyone here seem afraid of akh, seems he is the only one that can have a view here.

[smoak]

Exactly what benefit did winning the Saints game get us? I wouldn't even be bringing this up if the whole "trading up" thing hadn't been mentioned time and time again...even by Gibbs himself. And since we have nothing to give except next year's first, I ask you this..which of the two would you prefer:
1)Having lost the Saints game, finished 4-12, and picking Johnson with the 3rd or 4th pick.
2)Our current situation, and trading away this year's and next year's firsts to move up to at least #3 to get Johnson.
You would sacrifice next year's first round pick to preserve the useless win against the Saints?

Briggs, CJ, Anderson, Branch? Whatever we d.... I never, ever want to lose. Period. Playing for a draft pick is about as asinine in my mind as trying to win the heart of a woman by being a overzealous pushover to her every whimp. If it ever came to light that the Skins were trying to tank a game, I would quit watching and never spend another dime on merchandise or tickets again.

Winning a game like the Saints or Jags allows the coaching staff to show on film some positives to contrast what (hopefully) feels like a monstrous disaster of a season. It builds some confidence which is important when you worry about losing becoming more psychological than physical. When you lose, there is always the concern of wholesale changes, which generally means you are starting from scratch for the next 3 years. If you are tanking just to acquire a draft pick then you run the risk that the player isn't there (obviously unless you are #1 overall) or that the player is injured (Kellen Winslow anyone). What if the player doesn't declare (Leinart)?

Bottom line is that for me, I want to knock the ever living excrement out of the other team every week. I never want to lose and I don't care what the records are. The slogan is "Just win" not "Just draft".

As a side note, I wish the NFL would adopt a lottery system like the NBA uses so that crappy teams wouldn't automatically get the best picks. I hate rewarding teams that are consistent cellar dwellers with high picks.

[colkurtz]

Briggs, CJ, Anderson, Branch? Whatever we d.... I never, ever want to lose. Period. Playing for a draft pick is about as asinine in my mind as trying to win the heart of a woman by being a overzealous pushover to her every whimp. If it ever came to light that the Skins were trying to tank a game, I would quit watching and never spend another dime on merchandise or tickets again.

Winning a game like the Saints or Jags allows the coaching staff to show on film some positives to contrast what (hopefully) feels like a monstrous disaster of a season. It builds some confidence which is important when you worry about losing becoming more psychological than physical. When you lose, there is always the concern of wholesale changes, which generally means you are starting from scratch for the next 3 years. If you are tanking just to acquire a draft pick then you run the risk that the player isn't there (obviously unless you are #1 overall) or that the player is injured (Kellen Winslow anyone). What if the player doesn't declare (Leinart)?

Bottom line is that for me, I want to knock the ever living excrement out of the other team every week. I never want to lose and I don't care what the records are. The slogan is "Just win" not "Just draft".

As a side note, I wish the NFL would adopt a lottery system like the NBA uses so that crappy teams wouldn't automatically get the best picks. I hate rewarding teams that are consistent cellar dwellers with high picks.

Even late in the season the coaches want to win to build momentum gooing into the next season. Also, players are auditioning for the next year.

Still, you can see some teams playing soft late in the season.

[NCskinsfanatic]

why does everyone here seem afraid of akh, seems he is the only one that can have a view here.
I can only answer for myself, I have no problem with akh or the way he debates his views...not everyone is going to agree on hotly contested topics...just my 2 cents.

[X-Factor13]

why does everyone here seem afraid of akh, seems he is the only one that can have a view here.


I don't think people are afraid of him. I think sometimes he wears thin on people because he backs up all of his arguments with facts, where as most people (myself included) just state their opinion on a given subject. It would be a shame if someone were "afraid" of someone else on the board, because then the purpose of the forums would be defeated!


And to keep my post on topic... this deal, to me, would just be silly if we threw in another player in the deal. It would just be another sign of how horrible our FO is if we do end up doing this deal in the way this new proposal states.

[shally]

why does everyone here seem afraid of akh, seems he is the only one that can have a view here.

absurd..

people respect akh because..

his opinions are almost universally sound and backed up with fact

he wont tolerate opinions that are slipshod or poorly conceived

he respects the english language and frames his responses in intelligent,
coherent sentences with correct grammar and spelling

and he will respond to you, whether you have 100 posts or 10,000. he is not elitist and treats all fairly

and this is coming from someone who has had his backside flamed by akh more than once or twice

[smoak]

Even late in the season the coaches want to win to build momentum gooing into the next season. Also, players are auditioning for the next year.

Still, you can see some teams playing soft late in the season.

That also irritates me, but is a far cry from TANKING just to get a higher draft pick. Over the past 20 years, there have been times when I felt the Redskins were "going through the motions", but I never felt we just tanked from an organizational directive.

Hopefully Briggs gets traded to the Giants and ends the whole debate.

[shally]

That also irritates me, but is a far cry from TANKING just to get a higher draft pick. Over the past 20 years, there have been times when I felt the Redskins were "going through the motions", but I never felt we just tanked from an organizational directive.

Hopefully Briggs gets traded to the Giants and ends the whole debate.

the giants wont pay either the bears or briggs what is being asked

i think it is either the skins or he returns to the bears for 1 year and then hits free agency

[MONK_in_HOF]

i like the idea of picking up a third. Cooley and Dockery were thirds and served our team well.

Just say no to Chicago

Just to add a little irony, so was Briggs.

I really hope this is all just smoke and mirrors.

[Redskin4Life]

why does everyone here seem afraid of akh, seems he is the only one that can have a view here.
Honestly, I wasn't a fan of Akh at all. In fact the first "experience" I had with Akh on the board pissed me off so much I stopped writing for a while here.

But what I found out from staying on is that Akh will not only have an asine conversation about nothing and start a verbal war with anyone that's ready to go at it... but he'll also have a fair, reasonable and well thoughout convo with someone (on PM or over the MB) while being completely respectful of your opinion even when it differs from his own.

I guess for him, it takes some time to see if you're just a BS poster that's trolling or if you really have as much devotion for the Skins as he does. And you got to respect that...

[Patrick]

OH I'll be so happy when something WHICH probably will be nothing gets done. This potential situation does not deserve the attention it's received from hR ............ some of us are REALLY bored and desperate for football action aren't we ????? :bangdesk:

[shally]

Even late in the season the coaches want to win to build momentum gooing into the next season. Also, players are auditioning for the next year.

Still, you can see some teams playing soft late in the season.

that is always a fact of life in the nfl.. some teams play a lot tougher earlier in the year than late (the saints were a notorious example of that before last year.. kansas city and san diego also to a degree)

so that is why it is absurd to look at the schedule before the season and say whether it is tougher or not.. it is not only the teams, it is when you play them.. and whether they have mass injuries, etc...

[Redskin4Life]

the giants wont pay either the bears or briggs what is being asked

i think it is either the skins or he returns to the bears for 1 year and then hits free agency
I don't know... I think the Bears are just "sticking" it to us cause we didn't ask them about a trade but went through Rosy. IMO if the Bills were to offer the 12 pick, the Bears would be willing to give them Briggs and a second day pick back. And in the Giants case, they'll take that pick and run...

As for the money that Briggs will want, I don't think it's outrageous to think that he'll get $20M guaranteed from those teams... especially compared to his peers this offseason and the money they got. IMO, that's a deal when probably third of that "guaranteed" money will be in a form of a roster bonus 3-4 yrs down the line.

[smoak]

the giants wont pay either the bears or briggs what is being asked

i think it is either the skins or he returns to the bears for 1 year and then hits free agency

I was pulling a random team out of my rearend and put no thought into it. The important thing is that the rumore goes away.... Heck I prefer we do the deal than to have so much talk on a rumor.

[bergiemoore]

why does everyone here seem afraid of akh, seems he is the only one that can have a view here.

Personally, I just love watching him flame folks. It's like lambs to the slaughter!

Honestly, I don't think the guy is trying to be intimidating, but he does have a rather low tolerance for opinions that haven't been too well thought through. Knowing that has made me go back and check my facts on several occasions.

[SkinsfaninNJ]

I was pulling a random team out of my rearend and put no thought into it. The important thing is that the rumore goes away.... Heck I prefer we do the deal than to have so much talk on a rumor.
Good choice of team. The Giants need him more than any other team in the NFL. Hopefully, their newbie GM is too afraid to pull the trigger as he seems to be with anything this year.

[bergiemoore]

I don't know... I think the Bears are just "sticking" it to us cause we didn't ask them about a trade but went through Rosy. IMO if the Bills were to offer the 12 pick, the Bears would be willing to give them Briggs and a second day pick back. And in the Giants case, they'll take that pick and run...

As for the money that Briggs will want, I don't think it's outrageous to think that he'll get $20M guaranteed from those teams... especially compared to his peers this offseason and the money they got. IMO, that's a deal when probably third of that "guaranteed" money will be in a form of a roster bonus 3-4 yrs down the line.

By all reports, Rosenhaus came to us about it, not the other way around. I have heard on ESPN and from other news sources that the Bears aren't happy with how this situation has been handled, but hey, they're the ones who slapped the fanchise tag on the guy and made this an issue to begin with. Angelo can either get over it, or not. It shouldn't have any effect on the deal, or the price of tea in China, etc.

[Keino]

why does everyone here seem afraid of akh, seems he is the only one that can have a view here.

Oh please. Perhaps you should cease speaking to yourself out loud. Nobody is afraid of Akh. He just seems to be one of the few people in this discussion making sense right now.

You are perfectly free to have your view, but just be prepared to defend it with facts rather than conjecture. The reason the discussion around here remains top notch is because people like Akh won't allow people to come in here and make unsubstantiated claims thus watering down quality discussion.

[HailVictory]

why does everyone here seem afraid of akh, seems he is the only one that can have a view here.
I think the best way to describe how most feel about our Sage:

He is the light that shines on my day,
and the hope that I'll not turn away,
from the terrors that stand in my way.

Only in his splendor will i endure,
the knowlege he imparts to be sure,
will bouy me in this sea of manure.

O yea, Wait till draft day, and maybe we'll get a better deal,eh?

[bergiemoore]

I think the best way to describe how most feel about our Sage:

He is the light that shines on my day,
and the hope that I'll not turn away,
from the terrors that stand in my way.

Only in his splendor will i endure,
the knowlege he imparts to be sure,
will bouy me in this sea of manure.

O yea, Wait till draft day, and maybe we'll get a better deal,eh?

:lol1:

That was great. Nauseating, but funny...

[Redskin4Life]

By all reports, Rosenhaus came to us about it, not the other way around. I have heard on ESPN and from other news sources that the Bears aren't happy with how this situation has been handled, but hey, they're the ones who slapped the fanchise tag on the guy and made this an issue to begin with. Angelo can either get over it, or not. It shouldn't have any effect on the deal, or the price of tea in China, etc.
Maybe my wording was confusing... what I meant to say was that the Bears are probably miffed at the fact that the trade was handled so publicly and that the Skins FO didn't come to the Bears with an offer but instead told Rosey (jokingly or not) that we would offer an exchange of firsts for Briggs.

The Bears would have probably wanted to quietly find out: what they could get for the #6 pick and what was Briggs worth to other teams. By us speaking out in public about Briggs, the Bears couldn't find out anything and probably couldn't get fair trade value for the #6 pick from anyone. Not to mention that Briggs now knows other teams interest in him... so no hometown discount for the Bears.

Oh well, who cares. The Skins and Rosenhaus did what they hoped to do. The Skins let it be known that we're willing to trade our #6 for picks AND/OR a player. And Rosey forced the Bears hand in either signing him to a long-term deal or trading him... hopefully not to us.

[urobm]

Trading down 2 spots in the first round to acquire a 3rd rounder seems like a great deal to me. I hope they keep that #6 pick until draft day so they can see what it is really worth. I can't imagine the value would decrease between now and then.


That is the best thing ive heard all day. Two spots and a 3rd round pick that we desperately need. This is a no brainer, but like you stated the value wont decrease between now and then. There might possibly be more trade partners if Petersen or Quinn slip to #6. Even at #8 we could be able to draft Anderson, but it is a matter of who we really covet. I wouldnt be mad at all if we let the #8 pick (if we obtain it) work for us. There will suitors for that pick as well. So that pick could possible turn into another 3rd or 2nd depending on how bad they want that particular player at that spot.


If we did the deal for Briggs, I would be crushed because once again the FO hasn't learned anything. I cant get past the fact that we invested so much into a player (Mcintosh), but yet so eager to let him sit and waste his talent why we import a LB thats proven but will demand an extremely high salary and wont help us at our greatest need DL.

[smoak]

Good choice of team. The Giants need him more than any other team in the NFL. Hopefully, their newbie GM is too afraid to pull the trigger as he seems to be with anything this year.

Yeah, my thought was that if I didn't even care that Briggs went to an NFC East team then I obviously don't care where he goes. The iggles got Spikes to play weakside, but I'm not sure what the Giants have done to fill their hole.

So Giants it is.

Either way, April 28th couldn't get here fast enough.

[bergiemoore]

Maybe my wording was confusing... what I meant to say was that the Bears are probably miffed at the fact that the trade was handled so publicly and that the Skins FO didn't come to the Bears with an offer but instead told Rosey (jokingly or not) that we would offer an exchange of firsts for Briggs.

The Bears would have probably wanted to quietly find out: what they could get for the #6 pick and what was Briggs worth to other teams. By us speaking out in public about Briggs, the Bears couldn't find out anything and probably couldn't get fair trade value for the #6 pick from anyone. Not to mention that Briggs now knows other teams interest in him... so no hometown discount for the Bears.

Oh well, who cares. The Skins and Rosenhaus did what they hoped to do. The Skins let it be known that we're willing to trade our #6 for picks AND/OR a player. And Rosey forced the Bears hand in either signing him to a long-term deal or trading him... hopefully not to us.

Yeah, perhaps they would have liked to have this handled quietly, but that was never a realistic option. They slapped a franchise tag on a player represented by Drew Rosenhaus. They had this coming.

[colkurtz]

That also irritates me, but is a far cry from TANKING just to get a higher draft pick. Over the past 20 years, there have been times when I felt the Redskins were "going through the motions", but I never felt we just tanked from an organizational directive.

Hopefully Briggs gets traded to the Giants and ends the whole debate.

Agreed on all points. I hope we trade down a little and draft well - then we can end this topic and thread.

This Briggs trade talk all is just part of the month-long campaign by the FO to try to convince the league that we may draft someone besides a DT or DE - increasing our trade potential!

[bergiemoore]

That is the best thing ive heard all day. Two spots and a 3rd round pick that we desperately need. This is a no brainer, but like you stated the value wont decrease between now and then. There might possibly be more trade partners if Petersen or Quinn slip to #6. Even at #8 we could be able to draft Anderson, but it is a matter of who we really covet. I wouldnt be mad at all if we let the #8 pick (if we obtain it) work for us. There will suitors for that pick as well. So that pick could possible turn into another 3rd or 2nd depending on how bad they want that particular player at that spot.


If we did the deal for Briggs, I would be crushed because once again the FO hasn't learned anything. I cant get past the fact that we invested so much into a player (Mcintosh), but yet so eager to let him sit and waste his talent why we import a LB thats proven but will demand an extremely high salary and wont help us at our greatest need DL.

If the deal with Chicago doesn't happen, the Skins are most likely going to wait until they're on the clock before a trade-down happens. I just don't see too many other teams willing to trade up before they know exactly what they're going to be able to get. The #6 spot is not a sure thing at this point.

Still, there's the possibility that no one offers fair value for the trade.

If we did the trade for Briggs, for the original offer, we'd still have a 1st round pick, and the best LB corps in the league. I would not be crushed. Rocky could provide great depth, and would be able to step in in a year or two, depending on the health of our other LBs.

Jason La Canfora is under the impression that this deal is mostly owner driven, and not the result of interest from the coaching staff.

This entire pursuit of Briggs strikes as me ownership driven - wow, go figure, what a shocker? - and we'll see where it ends up. Bottom line is that Snyder speaks with his wallet, and I have heard that much like with Dre Bly, he has already let Briggs know that should he be traded here he will become a very wealthy weak-side linebacker.

Too soon to say whether it will actually happen or not, but the mere fact they are in this deep is pretty bizarre to me. Dale Lindsey gets fired at least in some small part because Rocky doesn't get on the field, and they the owner is schmoozing Next Question and Briggs a few months later, which would render Rocky a big-time spare part after giving up a heck of a lot to draft him a year ago. Whatever. Like I have said time and again, when it comes to covering this team nothing surprises me anymore.

LINK (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/2007/04/a_million_thanks.html)

[MONK_in_HOF]

If the deal with Chicago doesn't happen, the Skins are most likely going to wait until they're on the clock before a trade-down happens. I just don't see too many other teams willing to trade up before they know exactly what they're going to be able to get. The #6 spot is not a sure thing at this point.

Still, there's the possibility that no one offers fair value for the trade.

If we did the trade for Briggs, for the original offer, we'd still have a 1st round pick, and the best LB corps in the league. I would not be crushed. Rocky could provide great depth, and would be able to step in in a year or two, depending on the health of our other LBs.

Jason La Canfora is under the impression that this deal is mostly owner driven, and not the result of interest from the coaching staff.



LINK (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/2007/04/a_million_thanks.html)

That is a rather large assumption. I agree on paper it would look like one of the best groups in the league. But if there is no D line to keep blockers off them it might not matter.

Edit: Plus we have no way of knowing how Briggs would work in GW system. I for one feel his current system is beneficial at highlighting his skills and not sure if he would thrive as much in the Skins D.

[bergiemoore]

That is a rather large assumption. I agree on paper it would look like one of the best groups in the league. But if there is no D line to keep blockers off them it might not matter.

When it comes to the Skins, I am a little biased. :)

That said, Washington, Fletcher, and Briggs would be a heck of a unit with which to contend, and we'd still have the #31 pick to find a DT or DE to upgrade the line.

If this team is able to play the aggressive style of football that they played in 2004 and 2005, then yeah, they could be a force.

[silverspring]

I am...and I thinbk I have every right to be upset. It is a typical "Get what you dont need" Snyder move. LLoyd, Arch, Sanders, Trotter, George, Duckett..... the list goes on. Sure Snyder has pulled some good moves as well. I give him lots of credit for cap management and fiscal responsibility when it comes to the Redskin bottome line. But this a fantasy owner type move. The fact we are entertaining offers or even making them to me means we are dropping the whole 'build with what you have" approach the FO claimed they were doing this year.

I agree except that this and the moves you cite are not snyder moves they are gibbs moves.

But this whole deal is ridiculous. It does remind me of the lloyd and ARE deals last year. Back then a lot of us questioned why we needed 2 WRs. Why do we need another linebacker? We just got one, we still have marshall. How can they rule rocky as a dud when they have barely even played him. I am so sick of this grass is always greener thing, train your youth and give them a chance to develop. You have to commit to that development time. And if rocky is a dud i hope gibbs learns a lesson to stop trading picks away for a single player. And clearly this isn't just a smokescreen.

[JoeJacksonTaylor28]

Don't know if this was posted before, but a long term deal with the bears seems unlikely.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2820470

[LATrueRedskin]

Stillllllllll waiting on that Bears counteroffer...

[CNYSkinFan]

I agree except that this and the moves you cite are not snyder moves they are gibbs moves.

But this whole deal is ridiculous. It does remind me of the lloyd and ARE deals last year. Back then a lot of us questioned why we needed 2 WRs. Why do we need another linebacker? We just got one, we still have marshall. How can they rule rocky as a dud when they have barely even played him. I am so sick of this grass is always greener thing, train your youth and give them a chance to develop. You have to commit to that development time. And if rocky is a dud i hope gibbs learns a lesson to stop trading picks away for a single player. And clearly this isn't just a smokescreen.

All this talk about Gibbs moves versus Snyder moves are bogus. They are the same moves, Gibbs just okd them so he does have some culpability. However the negotiating on the contracts and the pursuit of the FAs are done by the FO, and that means Snyder and Vinny. No one will ever over rule Gibbs, but in that triumviate of decision making (Vinny, Danny, and Joe) I don't think anyone says no to any of them. And THAT is the problem. A GM is respected as much for the moves he does not make as the ones he does.

[HanburgerBum]

Hey, isn't that speculating? See how that works?:)



Who knows what is real and what isn't. But if it is put in the press, it is going to be talked about....that is what these forums are for, correct? If you don't want to chime in or the Briggs situation is getting to you, then don't read or post on the subject! (but please do because I do respect your opinons)



Whoa, "extremely pissed"? Me? No way akh! "Perplexed" is the word you should use. And I think this trade is garnering so much discussion is because we have such a low total of picks, and this 6th pick in the first round is our only firepower. Is it possible that some of us are getting a little "irked" about our apparent lack-of-concern when it comes to developing young talent through the draft?


Frankez99, you may not be extremely pissed if this trade goes thru. But, I definitely will be extremely pissed. In fact, I am extremely pissed now that the Skins are even considering the deal.

The front office needs to read that article by the Chicago sports writer (Le Duc?) in which he opined that the Bears should have made the trade yesterday. Washington should be thankful that Chicago appears to be getting greedy and demanding something extra in a counteroffer. The Skins should RUN, NOT WALK, to the exit as fast as possible and get away from this potential fiasco.

Briggs plays a position of no apparent great need, will cost tons of guaranteed money, and (worst) may not be an impact player. He may just be a more expensive Archuleta.

The 6th pick is worth a lot more than Briggs plus the 31st. Washington can either draft an impact player or trade down and pick two or three starters who will be young and cheap.

If this trade is made, I must presume that Gibbs signed off on it. In that case, it may be time to think about pulling the plug on Gibbs II.

[danny's stogie]

I don't know how anyone would mistake Briggs for Lloyd or Arch. Also, I don't think we can say the Skins don't need a player like Briggs. When you have the 31st ranked defense you need better players, period.

[shally]

I don't know how anyone would mistake Briggs for Lloyd or Arch. Also, I don't think we can say the Skins don't need a player like Briggs. When you have the 31st ranked defense you need better players, period.

i agree. the only negative would be if by obtaining briggs we prevent the obtaining of a d lineman that we need more.
thatis the only concern i have. the cap issues are not the problem. nor is increased depth a lb..
only whether we can still adequately address the d line if we also get briggs

[danny's stogie]

i agree. the only negative would be if by obtaining briggs we prevent the obtaining of a d lineman that we need more.
thatis the only concern i have. the cap issues are not the problem. nor is increased depth a lb..
only whether we can still adequately address the d line if we also get briggs

That depends on how you'd view the drop off from Adams, Anderson, and Branch to Tyler and co.

[akhhorus]

Briggs plays a position of no apparent great need, will cost tons of guaranteed money, and (worst) may not be an impact player. He may just be a more expensive Archuleta.

The only tiny difference being that Briggs is considered one of the best at his position, Arch was not.

The 6th pick is worth a lot more than Briggs plus the 31st. Washington can either draft an impact player or trade down and pick two or three starters who will be young and cheap.

And you can say the same about the 31st pick. Only we would have an established talent at OLB also. The record of 6th picks recent is pretty poor and the 31st picks are good.

If this trade is made, I must presume that Gibbs signed off on it. In that case, it may be time to think about pulling the plug on Gibbs II.

You have to be kidding me. Before he's even played a down, you've condemned this to be a bad move and Gibbs should be fired because of it? What happens if we make this deal and Briggs turns out to be a great OLB?

[akhhorus]

That depends on how you'd view the drop off from Adams, Anderson, and Branch to Tyler and co.

The question is: is the difference between Adams/Anderson/Branch and Harrell/Moses/Tyler worth more than the potential of Lance Briggs.

[shally]

That depends on how you'd view the drop off from Adams, Anderson, and Branch to Tyler and co.

i do not know enough to answer you.. guys like fent and akh are much better informed than i. you too..

i do know that we may still be able to trade down a bit and still get branch at 10-12.. adding another first day pick or 2 would be the icing on the cake as far as i am concerned

[shally]

The question is: is the difference between Adams/Anderson/Branch and Harrell/Moses/Tyler worth more than the potential of Lance Briggs.


as i said, i would defer to you on that.

there are no sure things in the draft

[danny's stogie]

The question is: is the difference between Adams/Anderson/Branch and Harrell/Moses/Tyler worth more than the potential of Lance Briggs.

The answer is obvious.

The telling thing here is how much the Bears are stalling here. They don't want to lose Briggs, but they also want him to play under the tag because it saves them money. If they felt like Briggs wasn't valuable they would have traded him already, now the only way to get him is to turn this into a nightmare for the Bears.

[akhhorus]

as i said, i would defer to you on that.

there are no sure things in the draft

I agree 100%. I love Branch and Anderson(and hate Adams), but I have Harrell as the #3 DT prospect and Moses as the #3 DE. I don't think there will be that much of a drop off if they're used and taught right.

[HanburgerBum]

I don't know how anyone would mistake Briggs for Lloyd or Arch. Also, I don't think we can say the Skins don't need a player like Briggs. When you have the 31st ranked defense you need better players, period.


Well, at this time last year, nobody in Washington thought Archuleta was going to be a big bust. And, Briggs will cost tons more (not only in cap room but in compensation to Chicago) than Arch. So, Briggs wouldn't have to be much below expectation for this deal to turn into a disaster.

Briggs stats show that he is not a playmaker in the sense of sacks, interceptions and forced fumbles. He does make a lot of tackles, but so did Arch.

Will Briggs be anywhere as good as Marcus Washington has been for the Skins? I would say that is very much in doubt.

And, doesn't it bother you that no other team seems to be in the running to make this trade? Shouldn't that make you wonder why Washington is? Aren't you tired of the Skins keep bidding against themselves?

If the Bears don't franchise Briggs next season, Washington can sign him then. Waiting one year is a lot better than giving up the No. 6 pick. It's not as if the Skins are just one player like Briggs away from being a true contender this season.

[frankez99]

I don't know how anyone would mistake Briggs for Lloyd or Arch. Also, I don't think we can say the Skins don't need a player like Briggs. When you have the 31st ranked defense you need better players, period.

You are correct.....but if you break it down unit by unit.....it was the front 4 who got pushed around....stood around with the hands on their hips breathing heavy.....let running backs run right through them. (yeah....there is plenty of blame to go around but my goodness, how glaring was our ineffective front DL?)

Those factors would nullify any effectiveness that Briggs would bring. Sure we need a player of Briggs caliber; all teams do.....but what we really need is an effective, young front 4 with depth.

It also wouldn't hurt to have FS, SS, and CB's who can catch as well and don't give 10 yard cushions on 3rd and 5's (coaching perhaps?).....but hey...one unit at a time.

Here is my conclusion: Briggs is good...better than what we have (not drastically though). But he is NOT good enough to overcome the absolutely embarrassing QB pressure our Linemen produced. He would be a luxury, and a wasted one at that.

[bergiemoore]

The answer is obvious.

The telling thing here is how much the Bears are stalling here. They don't want to lose Briggs, but they also want him to play under the tag because it saves them money. If they felt like Briggs wasn't valuable they would have traded him already, now the only way to get him is to turn this into a nightmare for the Bears.

The Bears are trying right now to make the most of a bad situation. They are getting a lot of negative press lately about being cheap, and miserly, especially after holding off so long on Lovie's contract extension. The Briggs situation is only adding to that perception.

As I see it now, these are their options:

1) Keep Briggs and play him under the franchise tag. This won't work too well if Briggs makes good on his promise to never play another down for them, or sits out until week 11. Here, they'll still have to find his replacement before the beginning of the year.

2) Resign Briggs to a multi-year extension. Angelo has already spoken to the press that this is unlikely to happen.

3) Trade him to the highest bidder. Here they're able to get value for him, and end any more talks about the stalemate or hold out. The Bears seem to be really miffed about all he attention this situation has brought them.

4) Remove the franchise tag, altogether. This is the least likely, and down-right dumbest option. Here the Bears get nothing.

My guess is that right now they are going with option 3. They are stalling and trying to up the asking price, while at the same time hoping that another team enters a bid.

By coming to an informal agreement with Rosenhaus about a figure, or just leaking a figure to the press (where did the $20 mil number come from anyway?), Snyder has set the bar for any competitor for this proposed trade, and that may scare off a number of the cheaper franchises.

[akhhorus]

Well, at this time last year, nobody in Washington thought Archuleta was going to be a big bust. And, Briggs will cost tons more (not only in cap room but in compensation to Chicago) than Arch. So, Briggs wouldn't have to be much below expectation for this deal to turn into a disaster.

Briggs stats show that he is not a playmaker in the sense of sacks, interceptions and forced fumbles. He does make a lot of tackles, but so did Arch.

And he made an all pro team and 2 pro bowls(and was an alternate in his first year as the starter), so I guess his peers think highly of him. And Briggs only has 3.5 sacks as a full time starter, but he has created 15 turnovers in that time(10 fumbles and 5 Ints). So, you can stop the "briggs isn't a playmaker" myth.

Will Briggs be anywhere as good as Marcus Washington has been for the Skins? I would say that is very much in doubt.

How can you say that? He's much more accomplished and developed than Washington was when he came over from Indy. Washington had one season where he had 8 sacks(12 total in Indy), but he had much less turnovers in his time in Indy created than Briggs has in the last 3 years(6 turnovers to Briggs' 15)

And, doesn't it bother you that no other team seems to be in the running to make this trade? Shouldn't that make you wonder why Washington is? Aren't you tired of the Skins keep bidding against themselves?

There aren't any teams publically in it, but most of the early reports all had Rosenhaus and the bears talking to other teams. The bears chided the skins for making this so public also.

If the Bears don't franchise Briggs next season, Washington can sign him then. Waiting one year is a lot better than giving up the No. 6 pick. It's not as if the Skins are just one player like Briggs away from being a true contender this season.

And if they tag him again, we'll just go through this again if we want him. Since the bears have A-said that they want to keep him and B-said they won't sign him to a long term deal(except on their terms) is very hard to reconcile these statements unless they plan to keep franchising Briggs until he accepts their under valued offer.

[frankez99]

By coming to an informal agreement with Rosenhaus about a figure, or just leaking a figure to the press (where did the $20 mil number come from anyway?), Snyder has set the bar for any competitor for this proposed trade, and that may scare off a number of the cheaper franchises.

That is one thing I don't get. If Rosenhaus talked with Snyder in privacy during the owners meetings and discussed some preliminary numbers, should that be allowed to be made public? I understand the agent-player relationship in regards to trying to make the most money for all parties involved, but it appeared as if Rosenhaus's initial comment to the press was "the Redskins have offered my client XXX million" before any formal word came out of Redskin park.

What stops and agent from making up some wild, untrue claim in an attempt to jack up his players bargaining power?

The fact that the Redskins have reached and "informal agreement" should be kept between D.R./Briggs, Chicago, Washington, and the league office.....not be made public until it is released by all concerned parties.

I wish I could just close my eyes and make this freakin' Briggs situation go away.

[danny's stogie]

Well, at this time last year, nobody in Washington thought Archuleta was going to be a big bust. And, Briggs will cost tons more (not only in cap room but in compensation to Chicago) than Arch. So, Briggs wouldn't have to be much below expectation for this deal to turn into a disaster.

Sorry, but I think a lot of people were pretty baffled by the Arch signing and were weary of his bad reputation for being awful in coverage and having serious injury problems.

Briggs stats show that he is not a playmaker in the sense of sacks, interceptions and forced fumbles. He does make a lot of tackles, but so did Arch.

He doesn't get a lot of sacks, but how many cover-2 linebackers do? All the lbers in 2006 with big sack numbers play in a 3-4 with the exception of Peterson. I do however notice that he was 4th among OLBs in tackles and first in forced fumbles among 4-3 linebackers.

Will Briggs be anywhere as good as Marcus Washington has been for the Skins? I would say that is very much in doubt.

Maybe, maybe not, but Briggs was a better player before hypothetically joining the Skins than MW was.

And, doesn't it bother you that no other team seems to be in the running to make this trade? Shouldn't that make you wonder why Washington is? Aren't you tired of the Skins keep bidding against themselves?

Why would I care? Briggs is a very, very good player and a first round pick swap is hardly anything to give up for a player of his caliber. I'm not going to get all frazzled because the Jets aren't involved in the discussion as well.

If the Bears don't franchise Briggs next season, Washington can sign him then. Waiting one year is a lot better than giving up the No. 6 pick. It's not as if the Skins are just one player like Briggs away from being a true contender this season.

A lot can change between now and next season, why wait? But the Skins aren't one 6th pick from being a contender either. Having Briggs and a first round pick is a better start to getting the defense fixed than just one first round pick.

[HanburgerBum]

The only tiny difference being that Briggs is considered one of the best at his position, Arch was not.



And you can say the same about the 31st pick. Only we would have an established talent at OLB also. The record of 6th picks recent is pretty poor and the 31st picks are good.



You have to be kidding me. Before he's even played a down, you've condemned this to be a bad move and Gibbs should be fired because of it? What happens if we make this deal and Briggs turns out to be a great OLB?


Briggs is considered one of the best OLBs, yes. But, he hasn't proven that for a Gregg Williams style defense. One of the Washington defense's biggest problems is the lack of forced turnovers. Well, Briggs stats show he wouldn't be of much help in that regard.

There is every reason to believe that no other team is willing to give up this much to acquire Briggs this offseason. So, why not sign him next year if Chicago doesn't tag him again when it wouldn't cost any compensation. This trade makes sense only if the Skins are just that one player (e.g. Briggs) away from being a true contender this season. Can you honestly say that is the case with this team?

As for Gibbs, I have always been an ardent supporter up to now. But, I am so angry at this type of personnel moves which show a lack of a coherent strategy to build a winning franchise I think it may be time for Joe to retire to his racing cars.

[akhhorus]

What stops and agent from making up some wild, untrue claim in an attempt to jack up his players bargaining power?

Absolutely nothing. I firmly believe that about 75% of the reports that the skins are interested in X player are the agents trying to do exactly that.

The fact that the Redskins have reached and "informal agreement" should be kept between D.R./Briggs, Chicago, Washington, and the league office.....not be made public until it is released by all concerned parties.

What fun is that? And the skins haven't even come close to an agreement with Rosenhaus and Briggs--if they've even talked about terms.

[danny's stogie]

You are correct.....but if you break it down unit by unit.....it was the front 4 who got pushed around....stood around with the hands on their hips breathing heavy.....let running backs run right through them. (yeah....there is plenty of blame to go around but my goodness, how glaring was our ineffective front DL?)

Those factors would nullify any effectiveness that Briggs would bring. Sure we need a player of Briggs caliber; all teams do.....but what we really need is an effective, young front 4 with depth.



Signing Briggs wouldn't prevent the Skins from signing a Dlinemen, what prevents them from doing so are that there isn't anyone worth mentioning currently available. Yes, if this was a deal where the Skins had an option of choosing between Tommie Harris and Lance Briggs I'd flip if they chose Briggs, but you can't fix the house if the hardware store isn't open yet.


It also wouldn't hurt to have FS, SS, and CB's who can catch as well and don't give 10 yard cushions on 3rd and 5's (coaching perhaps?).....but hey...one unit at a time.

Here is my conclusion: Briggs is good...better than what we have (not drastically though). But he is NOT good enough to overcome the absolutely embarrassing QB pressure our Linemen produced. He would be a luxury, and a wasted one at that.

I disagree with the bolded. LFB is old and has never been much of a playmaker. He isn't going to fix the linebacking corp by himself imo. MW lost all his speed last year due to the hip injury and if he doesn't fully regain it then we shouldn't count on him to be the 04 and 05 player, he'd simply be a solid linebacker. The defense needs someone on the second level to make plays and Briggs fits that bill.

[akhhorus]

Briggs is considered one of the best OLBs, yes. But, he hasn't proven that for a Gregg Williams style defense.

Except that Marcus Washington made the switch from the Tampa-2 to the 46 seamlessly. Briggs is very much like Washington in terms of his physical abilities and skill set. Washington was a Will LB in the T-2 and switched the SAM in a much different system also.

One of the Washington defense's biggest problems is the lack of forced turnovers. Well, Briggs stats show he wouldn't be of much help in that regard.

15 turnovers in 48 games won't improve the skins' takeaways? Thats one every 3 games.

There is every reason to believe that no other team is willing to give up this much to acquire Briggs this offseason. So, why not sign him next year if Chicago doesn't tag him again when it wouldn't cost any compensation.

I pointed out the statements from Jerry Angelo, if he stays with the Bears with the tag as his contract, it would be shocking if they didn't tag him again.

This trade makes sense only if the Skins are just that one player (e.g. Briggs) away from being a true contender this season. Can you honestly say that is the case with this team?

Can you honestly say that the #6 pick will do the same? Do you want to know who the last 3 #6 picks were? Kellen Winslow II, PacMan Jones and Vernon Davis.

As for Gibbs, I have always been an ardent supporter up to now. But, I am so angry at this type of personnel moves which show a lack of a coherent strategy to build a winning franchise I think it may be time for Joe to retire to his racing cars.

What lack of coherent strategy? The skins had to badly improve the defense this year. They started that with Smoot and Fletcher. Briggs continues that more than the #6 pick probably could. Only we would have a first rounder to improve it further with.

[bergiemoore]

A lot can change between now and next season, why wait? But the Skins aren't one 6th pick from being a contender either. Having Briggs and a first round pick is a better start to getting the defense fixed than just one first round pick.

Excellent point!!

This draft is deep at DLine. There will be someone just as talented at #31 who won't cost nearly as much as the #6.

[shally]

The Bears are trying right now to make the most of a bad situation. They are getting a lot of negative press lately about being cheap, and miserly, especially after holding off so long on Lovie's contract extension. The Briggs situation is only adding to that perception.

As I see it now, these are their options:

1) Keep Briggs and play him under the franchise tag. This won't work too well if Briggs makes good on his promise to never play another down for them, or sits out until week 11. Here, they'll still have to find his replacement before the beginning of the year.

2) Resign Briggs to a multi-year extension. Angelo has already spoken to the press that this is unlikely to happen.

3) Trade him to the highest bidder. Here they're able to get value for him, and end any more talks about the stalemate or hold out. The Bears seem to be really miffed about all he attention this situation has brought them.

4) Remove the franchise tag, altogether. This is the least likely, and down-right dumbest option. Here the Bears get nothing.

My guess is that right now they are going with option 3. They are stalling and trying to up the asking price, while at the same time hoping that another team enters a bid.

By coming to an informal agreement with Rosenhaus about a figure, or just leaking a figure to the press (where did the $20 mil number come from anyway?), Snyder has set the bar for any competitor for this proposed trade, and that may scare off a number of the cheaper franchises.

but apparently, we are the only serious bidder.. and we have a very high pick to offer.

why on earth should we even sweeten the deal ? let the bears struggle with this because the closer we get to the draft, the poorer their options become

we have done enough.. just get out of the way and let the bears stew in their own juices

[frankez99]

Excellent point!!

This draft is deep at DLine. There will be someone just as talented at #31 who won't cost nearly as much as the #6.

And I can live with that strategy! But take away the 31st pick and simply take our 6th for a straight up swap and we would be giving up way too much. The draft is deep at DL, but not that deep.

Like a lot of people are saying, this is a lot of posturing and speculation. But if the reports have an iota of truth to them and the Bears want to sweeten the deal, i.e. take away the first round swaps, then this deal would sour drastically IMO.

It is to the point where I just want something to happen. My B-r-i-g-g-s keys are wearing thin on my keyboard.

[silverspring]

All this talk about Gibbs moves versus Snyder moves are bogus. They are the same moves, Gibbs just okd them so he does have some culpability. However the negotiating on the contracts and the pursuit of the FAs are done by the FO, and that means Snyder and Vinny. No one will ever over rule Gibbs, but in that triumviate of decision making (Vinny, Danny, and Joe) I don't think anyone says no to any of them. And THAT is the problem. A GM is respected as much for the moves he does not make as the ones he does.

I agree that they are all involved but gibbs has the final say and that means he has the final responsibility. But like yourself I am miffed that none of them can keep their hands out of the candy jar.

[bergiemoore]

but apparently, we are the only serious bidder.. and we have a very high pick to offer.

why on earth should we even sweeten the deal ? let the bears struggle with this because the closer we get to the draft, the poorer their options become

we have done enough.. just get out of the way and let the bears stew in their own juices


Not so sure as to whether or not we're the only ones, but we are definitely the only ones that have gone public.

And I can live with that strategy! But take away the 31st pick and simply take our 6th for a straight up swap and we would be giving up way too much. The draft is deep at DL, but not that deep.

I haven't heard anyone but the most delusional Bear's fan (my brother-in-law) even suggest this.

Like a lot of people are saying, this is a lot of posturing and speculation. But if the reports have an iota of truth to them and the Bears want to sweeten the deal, i.e. take away the first round swaps, then this deal would sour drastically IMO.

It is to the point where I just want something to happen. My B-r-i-g-g-s keys are wearing thin on my keyboard.

If the Bears want the Skins to sweeten the pot, then I believe that the Skins should tell them exactly where to stick it. I would not want to see the Skins give anything else to these guys beyond the swap.

[frankez99]

but apparently, we are the only serious bidder.. and we have a very high pick to offer.

why on earth should we even sweeten the deal ? let the bears struggle with this because the closer we get to the draft, the poorer their options become

we have done enough.. just get out of the way and let the bears stew in their own juices

This has "Dre Bly" written all over....a lot of talk about the Redskins, no action with the Redskins, and he resigned with Denver with a whimper.

This is my opinion. Deep down the Bears covet our 6th pick.....they want it bad....because there is no way they are excited about moving forward with Rex Grossman (and Brian Griese). There is a good chance Brady Quinn will be available at number 6 and they want him in Chicago. They will continue this tough stance to put up this "no-nonsense" facade, but come close to draft day, they will be begging us to make this trade commiserate to our original "proposal". My die-hard Bears fan friend feels the same.

They may not be showing it, but they are not as tough as they think.

[akhhorus]

And I can live with that strategy! But take away the 31st pick and simply take our 6th for a straight up swap and we would be giving up way too much.

I fully agree with you there. We need to get the 31 or the 37 and something else.

The draft is deep at DL, but not that deep.

Actually while Anderson/Branch/Adams/Carriker/Moss are top 20 picks right now, there is some serious talent from pick 25-75 on the Dline. Right off the top of my head: Quentin Moses, Justin Harrell, Jay Moore, Ikaika Alama-Francis and Ryan McBean will be steals there.

[BIGSEF3]

Chicago is allegedly wanting Marshall, McIntosh or Golston in addition to our #6 for Briggs and their #31.

Hypothetically, if we accepted a deal like that, we would be dropping 25 places in the first round, and losing a starting caliber player, just to "upgrade" at the OLB spot. If the skins throw in a player to get this deal done they are absolute idiots. IMO there is a greater chance that Briggs will turn out to be a bust (being a product of the system/surrounding players in Chicago), than there is McIntosh will be a bust. I am really starting to loathe this trade.

[danny's stogie]

Chicago is allegedly wanting Marshall, McIntosh or Golston in addition to our #6 for Briggs and their #31.

Hypothetically, if we accepted a deal like that, we would be dropping 25 places in the first round, and losing a starting caliber player, just to "upgrade" at the OLB spot. If the skins throw in a player to get this deal done they are absolute idiots. IMO there is a greater chance that Briggs will turn out to be a bust (being a product of the system/surrounding players in Chicago), than there is McIntosh will be a bust. I am really starting to loathe this trade.

I wouldn't have any problem throwing in Lemar.

[HanburgerBum]

Except that Marcus Washington made the switch from the Tampa-2 to the 46 seamlessly. Briggs is very much like Washington in terms of his physical abilities and skill set. Washington was a Will LB in the T-2 and switched the SAM in a much different system also.



15 turnovers in 48 games won't improve the skins' takeaways? Thats one every 3 games.



I pointed out the statements from Jerry Angelo, if he stays with the Bears with the tag as his contract, it would be shocking if they didn't tag him again.



Can you honestly say that the #6 pick will do the same? Do you want to know who the last 3 #6 picks were? Kellen Winslow II, PacMan Jones and Vernon Davis.



What lack of coherent strategy? The skins had to badly improve the defense this year. They started that with Smoot and Fletcher. Briggs continues that more than the #6 pick probably could. Only we would have a first rounder to improve it further with.


Not sure where you got the 15 forced turnovers by Briggs, but I am not sure that you are wrong either. I read an article posted by someone here (I think it was authored by Kirwin of NFL Networks), which makes the point that LBs tend to be paid by tackles and not by turnovers. And, Briggs was used as an example why even though he didn't create many turnovers, he will be paid handsomely for his tackle totals. I thought the article showed Briggs to have something like 6 forced turnovers (including interceptions) in his career, but I can't swear to it. If you are right on this, I will apologize in advance.

When some players switch from one scheme to another, it is not a given that their play would not drop off. Since Brigss will cost the Skins a ton, it's a risk I don't think the team should take.

As for the Bears tagging Briggs again next year, it's definitely a chance worth taking when you consider the cost of flipping a No. 6 with a No. 31.

Of course, there is no guarantee that the No. 6 pick is a player that would make Washington a contender this season. But, he would have the credentials of an impact player down the road and would be significantly younger than Briggs. Besides, there should be an opportunity to trade the No. 6 pick for multiple first day choices.

In regard to other teams pursuing Briggs, I say let them. The Giants need him a lot more than the Skins--why aren't they beating down the Bears' doors? I will bet you Chicago comes looking for Washington in a couple of weeks if the Skins have the smarts to pull back from this now. When that happens, demand the Bears throw in a second rounder in addition to fliping the 1st round picks.

Rosenhaus chiding the Skins for making public the Briggs trade/contract situation? You must be joking. Rosenhaus is probably making up some of this stuff to drum up interest for his client. Why would he want to hush it up?

As for a coherent strategy, it seems to me that the 2007 Reskins team will not be a serious contender. This team needs to get younger, not older. Trading for players has the opposite result. Constantly making trades is the "band-aid" approach instead of curing your ills by growing your own players. Further, the Skins overpay just about every time they make a trade (Santana Moss being the sole exception), and the Briggs deal smells like another fleecing.

[greatest2]

Not sure where you got the 15 forced turnovers by Briggs, but I am not sure that you are wrong either. I read an article posted by someone here (I think it was authored by Kirwin of NFL Networks), which makes the point that LBs tend to be paid by tackles and not by turnovers. And, Briggs was used as an example why even though he didn't create many turnovers, he will be paid handsomely for his tackle totals. I thought the article showed Briggs to have something like 6 forced turnovers (including interceptions) in his career, but I can't swear to it. If you are right on this, I will apologize in advance.

When some players switch from one scheme to another, it is not a given that their play would not drop off. Since Brigss will cost the Skins a ton, it's a risk I don't think the team should take.

As for the Bears tagging Briggs again next year, it's definitely a chance worth taking when you consider the cost of flipping a No. 6 with a No. 31.

Of course, there is no guarantee that the No. 6 pick is a player that would make Washington a contender this season. But, he would have the credentials of an impact player down the road and would be significantly younger than Briggs. Besides, there should be an opportunity to trade the No. 6 pick for multiple first day choices.

In regard to other teams pursuing Briggs, I say let them. The Giants need him a lot more than the Skins--why aren't they beating down the Bears' doors? I will bet you Chicago comes looking for Washington in a couple of weeks if the Skins have the smarts to pull back from this now. When that happens, demand the Bears throw in a second rounder in addition to fliping the 1st round picks.

Rosenhaus chiding the Skins for making public the Briggs trade/contract situation? You must be joking. Rosenhaus is probably making up some of this stuff to drum up interest for his client. Why would he want to hush it up?

As for a coherent strategy, it seems to me that the 2007 Reskins team will not be a serious contender. This team needs to get younger, not older. Trading for players has the opposite result. Constantly making trades is the "band-aid" approach instead of curing your ills by growing your own players. Further, the Skins overpay just about every time they make a trade (Santana Moss being the sole exception), and the Briggs deal smells like another fleecing.

i conqur with all that is stated above


my position on any trade for briggs: NO

[skinsfan36]

not sure if anyone posted this but someone told me at work today that shefter said on nfl network that we will not add anything to the deal its take it or leave it. so how many pages is this up to?

[HanburgerBum]

Sorry, but I think a lot of people were pretty baffled by the Arch signing and were weary of his bad reputation for being awful in coverage and having serious injury problems.



He doesn't get a lot of sacks, but how many cover-2 linebackers do? All the lbers in 2006 with big sack numbers play in a 3-4 with the exception of Peterson. I do however notice that he was 4th among OLBs in tackles and first in forced fumbles among 4-3 linebackers.



Maybe, maybe not, but Briggs was a better player before hypothetically joining the Skins than MW was.



Why would I care? Briggs is a very, very good player and a first round pick swap is hardly anything to give up for a player of his caliber. I'm not going to get all frazzled because the Jets aren't involved in the discussion as well.



A lot can change between now and next season, why wait? But the Skins aren't one 6th pick from being a contender either. Having Briggs and a first round pick is a better start to getting the defense fixed than just one first round pick.


Why wait until next year to sign Briggs as a free agent? How about the enormous cost of flipping a No. 6 with a No. 31?

Washington isn't a serious contender in 2007 anyway. Why not wait? Why not get younger with what the No. 6 pick will bring?

You can't even tell me that Briggs will be as good as Marcus Washington has been here, when MW cost the Skins NOTHING in compensation. Yet, you want to take the risk for acquiring Briggs now despite the very high cost. Does that make sense?

[akhhorus]

Not sure where you got the 15 forced turnovers by Briggs, but I am not sure that you are wrong either. I read an article posted by someone here (I think it was authored by Kirwin of NFL Networks), which makes the point that LBs tend to be paid by tackles and not by turnovers. And, Briggs was used as an example why even though he didn't create many turnovers, he will be paid handsomely for his tackle totals. I thought the article showed Briggs to have something like 6 forced turnovers (including interceptions) in his career, but I can't swear to it. If you are right on this, I will apologize in advance.

My Source (http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/395932)
2004: 0.5 sacks, 1 Int(returned for a TD), 9 passes defended
2005: 2 sacks(one ending Ramsey in DC), 2 Ints(1 returned for an TD), 9 passes defended, 3 forced fumbles, 2 recovered fumbles
2006: 1 sack, 2 Ints, 8 passes defended, 4 forced fumbles, 1 recovered fumble

During these same three years, Marcus Washington has had 16.5 sacks, 18 passes defended, 1 Int, 6 fumbles forced, 5 recovered. And Briggs beats him in tackles 363 to 286.

When some players switch from one scheme to another, it is not a given that their play would not drop off. Since Brigss will cost the Skins a ton, it's a risk I don't think the team should take.

You're right to a point, but we've seen a LB from a similar system make the transition.

As for the Bears tagging Briggs again next year, it's definitely a chance worth taking when you consider the cost of flipping a No. 6 with a No. 31.

I completely disagree. The cost is in our favor with getting Briggs back.

Of course, there is no guarantee that the No. 6 pick is a player that would make Washington a contender this season. But, he would have the credentials of an impact player down the road and would be significantly younger than Briggs.

Briggs is 26 now(27 in november). So they wouldn't be that much younger(Gaines Adams will be 24 by the start of the 07 season, Alan Branch will be 23 by the end of the 07 season). And again, back to the list of #6 picks of late. Their "credentials" haven't amounted to much. The 31st picks are still high talented picks.

Besides, there should be an opportunity to trade the No. 6 pick for multiple first day choices.

I love the draft pick trades, and there are some potential partners for the skins, but if you think we'll get 3-4 first day picks, you're kidding yourself. Unless Calvin Johnson or Adrian Peterson dropped to 6, I would be shocked if the skins got more than a 3rd and a 4th. Atlanta isn't going give up more than a 3rd to move up to 6(if they would even do that).

In regard to other teams pursuing Briggs, I say let them. The Giants need him a lot more than the Skins--why aren't they beating down the Bears' doors?

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.

I will bet you Chicago comes looking for Washington in a couple of weeks if the Skins have the smarts to pull back from this now. When that happens, demand the Bears throw in a second rounder in addition to fliping the 1st round picks.

They have our 2nd rounder, and they won't give us the 31 and 37 along with Briggs for the 6. No one is that stupid.

Rosenhaus chiding the Skins for making public the Briggs trade/contract situation? You must be joking.

The Bears' GM said that.

As for a coherent strategy, it seems to me that the 2007 Reskins team will not be a serious contender. This team needs to get younger, not older.

This team needs talent on defense. Old or young. Just bringing in a bunch of rookies won't suddenly make us into a contender in 07 and 08.

Trading for players has the opposite result. Constantly making trades is the "band-aid" approach instead of curing your ills by growing your own players. Further, the Skins overpay just about every time they make a trade (Santana Moss being the sole exception), and the Briggs deal smells like another fleecing.

Except, again(for the 40th time) we aren't trading away picks here. We're staying the first round and picking up one of the top OLBs in the league right now. How exactly is that making the skins worse?

[danny's stogie]

Why wait until next year to sign Briggs as a free agent? How about the enormous cost of flipping a No. 6 with a No. 31?

I don't consider swapping picks a high cost. If they lost a pick, then yes, but since they get another first rounder in return it's a good deal for the Skins.

Washington isn't a serious contender in 2007 anyway. Why not wait? Why not get younger with what the No. 6 pick will bring?

Briggs would be the Skins' youngest starting linebacker next season, that's getting younger. And why do you keep glossing over the parameters of the deal? Would the Skins suddenly get older if they drafted 31st instead of 6th?

You can't even tell me that Briggs will be as good as Marcus Washington has been here, when MW cost the Skins NOTHING in compensation. Yet, you want to take the risk for acquiring Briggs now despite the very high cost. Does that make sense?

You're nuts if you think that MW was a better player in Indy than Briggs has been for the Bears. That was your original statement, not this specious comment about who would be better as a Skin.

One thing that no one bothers to mention is that the 6th pick would likely recieve as much in guaranteed money as Briggs would, while a late-first costs significantly less. The 6th pick is as much of a risk as Briggs, likely more, but Briggs + pick 31 is much less a risk than just pick 6.

[akhhorus]

One thing that no one bothers to mention is that the 6th pick would likely recieve as much in guaranteed money as Briggs would, while a late-first costs significantly less. The 6th pick is as much of a risk as Briggs, likely more, but Briggs + pick 31 is much less a risk than just pick 6.

For the record, Vernon Davis(last year's #6 pick) received 15 million guaranteed(about 12.5 million in a signing bonus). The rumor is we offered Briggs 20 guaranteed.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Briggs, CJ, Anderson, Branch? Whatever we d.... I never, ever want to lose. Period. Playing for a draft pick is about as asinine in my mind as trying to win the heart of a woman by being a overzealous pushover to her every whimp. If it ever came to light that the Skins were trying to tank a game, I would quit watching and never spend another dime on merchandise or tickets again.

Winning a game like the Saints or Jags allows the coaching staff to show on film some positives to contrast what (hopefully) feels like a monstrous disaster of a season. It builds some confidence which is important when you worry about losing becoming more psychological than physical. When you lose, there is always the concern of wholesale changes, which generally means you are starting from scratch for the next 3 years. If you are tanking just to acquire a draft pick then you run the risk that the player isn't there (obviously unless you are #1 overall) or that the player is injured (Kellen Winslow anyone). What if the player doesn't declare (Leinart)?

Bottom line is that for me, I want to knock the ever living excrement out of the other team every week. I never want to lose and I don't care what the records are. The slogan is "Just win" not "Just draft".

As a side note, I wish the NFL would adopt a lottery system like the NBA uses so that crappy teams wouldn't automatically get the best picks. I hate rewarding teams that are consistent cellar dwellers with high picks.
I know it's from a few pages ago, but I just got home, and wanted to clear my position on this matter, since 3 or 4 people responded to my last post..
I am absolutely NOT advocating tanking games..I was saying that IF we were so desperate to get Johnson (WHICH I DOUBT) that we would do something as retarded as trading away our first rounder this year and next, then we could have just lost the New Orleans game and made our wish come true (actually our FO's wish) without throwing away even more picks than what we already do.
I repeat, this is NOT what I would have done, or what I would have wanted them to do..but I would not pick CJ with our #6, let alone trade away the farm to move up and get him..that would be absolutely moronic.
Sorry for the little OT moment.

[LASkin]

Another consideration in going after Briggs: if you want to have a great defense, you need to be adequate everywhere and great somewhere. Where great is varies. When San Francisco was winning Super Bowls, they would do it with one or to good DL, decent LBs, and great DBs. When the NYG won under Parcells, they were super at LB but not everywhere else. Long ago, the Cowboys used to be great in the DL, not elsewhere.

In this era, it's very, very difficult to build a defense like the Ravens, who were great in many places in their Super Bowl year. You have to be incredibly lucky in the draft and FA.

The best shot the Skins have of being great somewhere next year is at LB. If Washington is healthy, Briggs plays like he has at Chicago, and London-Fletcher has something left in the tank, together with McIntosh as the main backup, they would be very solid indeed at LB.

[MONK_in_HOF]

Briggs would be the Skins' youngest starting linebacker next season, that's getting younger. And why do you keep glossing over the parameters of the deal? Would the Skins suddenly get older if they drafted 31st instead of 6th?


I think the general logic there, as I perceive it from most, is that the Skins would get younger by maintaining the 6th pick and trading down, thus acquiring more young talent. Obviously swapping pick for pick in the same draft wouldn't make anybody younger and anybody who thinks so should probably have their head checked before debating anything.

Getting younger shouldn't be the Skins top priority IMO, but improving the D-line should. I feel that the lack of quality DL available year after year in FA is evidence that the draft is the best place to bolster a D-line. Teams seem to do everything they can to maintain quality linemen. The quality linemen that do make it to FA usually cost a ton and many of them have busted in recent years also. This is probably why, outside of the addition of Griffin, the other FA Dline acquisitions the Skins have made in recent years have done little to improve the unit.

[danny's stogie]

I think the general logic there, as I perceive it from most, is that the Skins would get younger by maintaining the 6th pick and trading down, thus acquiring more young talent. Obviously swapping pick for pick in the same draft wouldn't make anybody younger and anybody who thinks so should probably have their head checked before debating anything.



If that's what this is really about then it should be stated explicitly, but I don't get that sense at all from the posts I've read pleading that the Skins keep the 6th pick.

[firehawk157]

Just a thought on the matter... It's pretty obvious that one of the top two QBs are going to fall to us at #6, so I think the reason the Skins have made this such a huge issue is that I bet, provided Quinn is up there at #6, there will be a lot of people eyeing our pick. If we make it glaringly obvious that Chicago is considering a 2 time pro bowl LB and a first swap, how quickly would you be jumping up when we were on the clock?
Just picture you are, say, the jets who are in bad need of a QB but knowing that your pick isn't going to net you a top tier QB. The Bears are talking about sending us their first AND a perennial pro-bowler for that #6, what do you give up to one-up them?

[Meatsnack]

Just a thought on the matter... It's pretty obvious that one of the top two QBs are going to fall to us at #6, so I think the reason the Skins have made this such a huge issue is that I bet, provided Quinn is up there at #6, there will be a lot of people eyeing our pick. If we make it glaringly obvious that Chicago is considering a 2 time pro bowl LB and a first swap, how quickly would you be jumping up when we were on the clock?
Just picture you are, say, the jets who are in bad need of a QB but knowing that your pick isn't going to net you a top tier QB. The Bears are talking about sending us their first AND a perennial pro-bowler for that #6, what do you give up to one-up them?
Bingo. And this is why big trades high up in the draft never happen before daft day. Spun the right way, this can remake a roster. Fumbled, it can mire a team in mediocrity for years, e.g. the Herschel Walker trade between Minne and the Cownotmen and the Ricky Williams trade between us and New Orleans.

[danny's stogie]

Bingo. And this is why big trades high up in the draft never happen before daft day. Spun the right way, this can remake a roster. Fumbled, it can mire a team in mediocrity for years, e.g. the Herschel Walker trade between Minne and the Cownotmen and the Ricky Williams trade between us and New Orleans.

I think the one thing common with all those team defining trades like the Walker trade, Ricky, Eli, etc. is that the team that ends up with the higher mass is the one that wins. Briggs + 31 > 6

[akhhorus]

Bingo. And this is why big trades high up in the draft never happen before daft day. Spun the right way, this can remake a roster. Fumbled, it can mire a team in mediocrity for years, e.g. the Herschel Walker trade between Minne and the Cownotmen and the Ricky Williams trade between us and New Orleans.

I believe that the Ricky Williams deal was in fact a draft day deal. Ironically enough the Skins only ever used 3 of the draft picks directly from the Saints(Lavar, Nate Stimson and Lloyd Harrison). I don't see the comparison though: Briggs and a first for a first 25 picks higher vs A 1st(Ricky) and 3rd rounder(which they dealt away) for a 1st, a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th?

[helimech24]

I know that I haven't been around for this whole thread or the three before, but I don't like this at all. We have Lemar and Rocky on the outside opposite of Washington. We need to trade down for more picks not for a player.

[shally]

I know that I haven't been around for this whole thread or the three before, but I don't like this at all. We have Lemar and Rocky on the outside opposite of Washington. We need to trade down for more picks not for a player.

all possibilities still exist, including trading up...

[silverspring]

I think the one thing common with all those team defining trades like the Walker trade, Ricky, Eli, etc. is that the team that ends up with the higher mass is the one that wins. Briggs + 31 > 6

Yes, but you forget we still have to pay for briggs and we don't need briggs. This is what I don't get. Yeah there are lots of players out there that would be nice to have, but we don't need this guy. Oh and no need to resign cooley.

[shally]

Yes, but you forget we still have to pay for briggs and we don't need briggs. This is what I don't get. Yeah there are lots of players out there that would be nice to have, but we don't need this guy. Oh and no need to resign cooley.

despite what some of us might believe, i think that cooley and briggs are 2 mutually separate issues

[silverspring]

despite what some of us might believe, i think that cooley and briggs are 2 mutually separate issues

They aren't. This is why we need a gm. It isn't that complicated, you sign one guy and it effects the ability to sign another. We have now restructured nearly everyone on the roster that can be. So we aren't going to be able to keep pulling cap room out of a hat. Even if we get the better deal on this trade, this signing is simply frivilous and unnecessary.

[akhhorus]

Yes, but you forget we still have to pay for briggs and we don't need briggs. This is what I don't get. Yeah there are lots of players out there that would be nice to have, but we don't need this guy. Oh and no need to resign cooley.

Unless we give Briggs 70 million(which won't happen), cutting Arch and dumping Brunell would allow us to pay for Briggs and resign Cooley to what Jason Whitten got.

[JoeJacksonTaylor28]

The #6 pick will have much more value on draft day. With Russell, Quinn, Peterson, Johnson, Thomas, Landry, Adams, Branch, etc. some of them will be around by #6. Who? It won't be known until the draft, and then, the teams interested in whoever is left, will want to make a deal. The more time the Bears don't deal Briggs, the less they will get (considering his threat of sitting out is for real), so I say, let's play the waiting game, we have leverage, they don't.

[helimech24]

all possibilities still exist, including trading up...For JaMarcus Russell? I think I would actually slit my own throat if that happen. Or start watching the CFL!

[rskinsfan10]

I've pretty much refrained from commenting on this deal (purposely I may add), but when I skim through some of the pages there seems to be a recurring theme that I simply don't understand: Why is there this huge ASSUMPTION by some that if this deal is done then that means that Cooley is surely gone from DC? I don't know if this has been addressed and I will not look in on the hundreds of posts that have already occurred, so if this has been asked/answered, someone bring me up to speed with how this discussion is progressing on that particular part of the equation.

[WinnpegSkinsFan]

The #6 pick will have much more value on draft day. With Russell, Quinn, Peterson, Johnson, Thomas, Landry, Adams, Branch, etc. some of them will be around by #6. Who? It won't be known until the draft, and then, the teams interested in whoever is left, will want to make a deal. The more time the Bears don't deal Briggs, the less they will get (considering his threat of sitting out is for real), so I say, let's play the waiting game, we have leverage, they don't.

I concur. Let the Bears stew and if they're really serious they'll come to us on draft day and sweeten the offer. I don't see the urgency in doing this deal now. I still think the #6 pick could get decent trade value given that some of the above players are available.

[akhhorus]

They aren't. This is why we need a gm. It isn't that complicated, you sign one guy and it effects the ability to sign another. We have now restructured nearly everyone on the roster that can be. So we aren't going to be able to keep pulling cap room out of a hat. Even if we get the better deal on this trade, this signing is simply frivilous and unnecessary.

Kinda like Bill Polian this offseason? He's letting 5 defensive starters walk to pay Dwight Freeney(Reagor, June and Harper have left already, Doss and Morris-and perhaps Corey Simon are next). But since he won a Super Bowl, thats just smart football?

[Red Bear]

I've pretty much refrained from commenting on this deal (purposely I may add), but when I skim through some of the pages there seems to be a recurring theme that I simply don't understand: Why is there this huge ASSUMPTION by some that if this deal is done then that means that Cooley is surely gone from DC? I don't know if this has been addressed and I will not look in on the hundreds of posts that have already occurred, so if this has been asked/answered, someone bring me up to speed with how this discussion is progressing on that particular part of the equation.

because many people dont understand the cap well enough. its also like the people harping for us to extend taylor now when hes locked up another 3 years atleast. also people are sayiing we restructured every contract possible which is not the case, we restructured moss and portis. a few others were extensions.

[silverspring]

Kinda like Bill Polian this offseason? He's letting 5 defensive starters walk to pay Dwight Freeney(Reagor, June and Harper have left already, Doss and Morris-and perhaps Corey Simon are next). But since he won a Super Bowl, thats just smart football?

I don't know the circumstances but it doesn't sound that smart to me.


I don't necessarily think that this kills our opportunity of resigning cooley. I am sure in the end the FO will work their magic, but i do think that at some point they are going to run out tricks and this kind of foolish spending will catch up to us. Maybe for taylor. Or maybe no one in particular but just the concept of having no reserve makes me nervous. I think we should always have some contigency cap room in case we need to replace some important parts, this is football, players get hurt unexpectedly. I just don't think it is smart in the big picture to buy toys you don't need.

[rskinsfan10]

because many people dont understand the cap well enough. its also like the people harping for us to extend taylor now when hes locked up another 3 years atleast. also people are sayiing we restructured every contract possible which is not the case, we restructured moss and portis. a few others were extensions.Okay, thank you very much.

For the record, I'm in favor of this deal as it is currently, and it doesn't mean the sure demise of Cooley, Taylor or anyone else currently in a Skins uniform if it gets done.

My two cents...

[silverspring]

because many people dont understand the cap well enough. its also like the people harping for us to extend taylor now when hes locked up another 3 years atleast. also people are sayiing we restructured every contract possible which is not the case, we restructured moss and portis. a few others were extensions.

Who haven't we restructured?

Maybe not everyone but we have restructured all the big players. We didn't do everyone this year but we have been over the last couple and from what i understand you can only restructure a contract so many times while still benefiting.

[akhhorus]

I don't know the circumstances but it doesn't sound that smart to me.


Freeney got the exclusive franchise tag at over 11 million. but the point is that a GM-even a supposedly smart one-will make the same mistakes you want to lay at the feet of Snyder/Cerrato/Gibbs.

I don't necessarily think that this kills our opportunity of resigning cooley. I am sure in the end the FO will work their magic, but i do think that at some point they are going to run out tricks and this kind of foolish spending will catch up to us. Maybe for taylor. Or maybe no one in particular but just the concept of having no reserve makes me nervous. I think we should always have some contigency cap room in case we need to replace some important parts, this is football, players get hurt unexpectedly. I just don't think it is smart in the big picture to buy toys you don't need.

The one advantage we have when it comes to Taylor and Cooley is that neither position makes a whole lot of money, even at the top levels. Jason Whitten got 42 million I believe over 6-7 years. Ed Reed is the highest paid safety, and he got 18 million guaranteed and 40 million(I believe) over 6-7 years. Depending on the splits, the skins could easily afford those and Briggs. and not have a clogged cap figure. In two years, the skins will have Daniels, Wynn, Griffin, Springs, Arch, Brunell, Lloyd(more than likely) and perhaps Marcus Washington off the books and thats a TON of money(roughly 100+ million).

[silverspring]

Freeney got the exclusive franchise tag at over 11 million. but the point is that a GM-even a supposedly smart one-will make the same mistakes you want to lay at the feet of Snyder/Cerrato/Gibbs.

No doubt, i just feel like gibbs has been doing it 3 years running now. I thought they were finally going to show some restraint this offseason but it appears that they are trying to spend every dollar they can and pick up everything shiny.



The one advantage we have when it comes to Taylor and Cooley is that neither position makes a whole lot of money, even at the top levels. Jason Whitten got 42 million I believe over 6-7 years. Ed Reed is the highest paid safety, and he got 18 million guaranteed and 40 million(I believe) over 6-7 years. Depending on the splits, the skins could easily afford those and Briggs. and not have a clogged cap figure. In two years, the skins will have Daniels, Wynn, Griffin, Springs, Arch, Brunell, Lloyd(more than likely) and perhaps Marcus Washington off the books and thats a TON of money(roughly 100+ million).

That is a good point, it is just hard to believe that we can spend money like this without feeling the impact at some point.

[akhhorus]

No doubt, i just feel like gibbs has been doing it 3 years running now. I thought they were finally going to show some restraint this offseason but it appears that they are trying to spend every dollar they can and pick up everything shiny.

We've never had an offseason where we lost so many starters on one side of the ball under Gibbs. If anything, the Colts are an example of how you can sign big time deals and just keep trying to replace starters with cheap FA/draft picks. Go through the list of players the Colts have lost in 3 years and its stunning.

That is a good point, it is just hard to believe that we can spend money like this without feeling the impact at some point.

Considering what the cap could be going up under the new CBA, the skins could sign Briggs hypothetically, Taylor, Cooley and still have plenty of cap room without major cuts.

[skinfan43]

No kidding. We have hit 1,273 posts so far in this discussion...
Sorry, didn't mean to get all Lumsden on everyone with this thread;)

[Red Bear]

Who haven't we restructured?

Maybe not everyone but we have restructured all the big players. We didn't do everyone this year but we have been over the last couple and from what i understand you can only restructure a contract so many times while still benefiting.

ok, name everyone weve restructured this year that arent named santana moss and clinton portis.


anyways on another note, the giants apparently are trying to drive up the trade price for briggs

http://mvn.com/nfl-giants/2007/04/02/briggs-update/

[silverspring]

We've never had an offseason where we lost so many starters on one side of the ball under Gibbs. If anything, the Colts are an example of how you can sign big time deals and just keep trying to replace starters with cheap FA/draft picks. Go through the list of players the Colts have lost in 3 years and its stunning.



Considering what the cap could be going up under the new CBA, the skins could sign Briggs hypothetically, Taylor, Cooley and still have plenty of cap room without major cuts.

Like you say they will probably pull it off. But I really don't like the idea of depending on making signings now and depending on the new CBA so we have room to keep our in house guys. What especially scares me is the massive amount of inflation we saw this offseason. We have to keep in mind that as the cba gets bigger that doesn't translate cleanly because the cost of players go up. IMO what we are doing is bad business.

[akhhorus]

ok, name everyone weve restructured this year that arent named santana moss and clinton portis.


anyways on another note, the giants apparently are trying to drive up the trade price for briggs

http://mvn.com/nfl-giants/2007/04/02/briggs-update/

Reese thought that the bears would consider a 11 spot trade up in the first round plus a 3rd and a 7th over the #6 pick? Or that this would provoke a richer offer from the skins? He's more out of his depths than I think. Thats 421 draft points, roughly the equivalent of the 48th overall pick.

[silverspring]

ok, name everyone weve restructured this year that arent named santana moss and clinton portis.


anyways on another note, the giants apparently are trying to drive up the trade price for briggs

http://mvn.com/nfl-giants/2007/04/02/briggs-update/

As I said in my post it isn't just who we have restructured this year it is the last 3 years. You can't just keep restructuring these guys over and over, it becomes unsensible.

[urobm]

That is a rather large assumption. I agree on paper it would look like one of the best groups in the league. But if there is no D line to keep blockers off them it might not matter.

Edit: Plus we have no way of knowing how Briggs would work in GW system. I for one feel his current system is beneficial at highlighting his skills and not sure if he would thrive as much in the Skins D.


Yes, exactly that is the part of the equation that everyone is missing. If we dont put a decent fron four out there, it doesnt matter who plays LB for us.

I think the thing the FO has to do is decipher between needs and wants. We need DL help, but we want Briggs. Briggs does not play on the DL so he does not fit a need. He would be a luxury LB that would make us better, but wouldnt ultimately solve our problems.

[Red Bear]

As I said in my post it isn't just who we have restructured this year it is the last 3 years. You can't just keep restructuring these guys over and over, it becomes unsensible.

many of the guys that restructured got rewarded with new deals/extensions(sameuls, jansen, thomas). our contracts are setup for restructures, players get a lower cap number but more in gaurantees, its win-win. the media has been predicting cap trouble/caphell for us for years, yet it hasnt happened, either theyve brainwashed you or you really have no basic understanding of caps and contracts.

[skinfan43]

many of the guys that restructured got rewarded with new deals/extensions(sameuls, jansen, thomas). our contracts are setup for restructures, players get a lower cap number but more in gaurantees, its win-win. the media has been predicting cap trouble/caphell for us for years, yet it hasnt happened, either theyve brainwashed you or you really have no basic understanding of caps and contracts.
It's true, our deals have almost always been set up as appearing long-term, but are actually 2-3 year deals that we can easily restructure if we wish. My friends here in Philly keep asking how we kept getting top new guys every year without going over the cap, and I tell them it's Eric Shaffer combined with the new CBA. That's what it seems to me, anyway. When the new CBA was instated, I lost all need for any worry, IMO.

[urobm]

I agree 100%. I love Branch and Anderson(and hate Adams), but I have Harrell as the #3 DT prospect and Moses as the #3 DE. I don't think there will be that much of a drop off if they're used and taught right.


Anderson, has tremendous upside and I have always loved Moses. Branch has the size and ability to dominate, but with him you never know what you are getting.

We could really make out pretty well in thiis draft with a trade down. Moses will probaly be there in the second. I do believe that Atlanta will trade up to obtain our pick to ensure they get Landry. So if we get their 8th pick we can manuever from there.

[urobm]

The deal shouldnt be made no matter what. Its dumb, we have Rocky & Marshall. Whats the damn point seriously? Keep the 6th & if we can trade down & pick up a 2nd or 3rd that would be picture perfect.

I'm sick of the dumb off season moves. We might as well have kept Casserly

Exactly, I dont see why this trade is even being considered. Just when you think things are going in the right direction, you get hit with this. Hopefully the FO comes the their senses soon. Swaping picks and obtaining Briggs would be a huge mistake.

[danny's stogie]

Yes, but you forget we still have to pay for briggs and we don't need briggs. This is what I don't get. Yeah there are lots of players out there that would be nice to have, but we don't need this guy. Oh and no need to resign cooley.

A) like I said a page ago, they're still going to be paying the 6th pick nearly as much, probably around 17M guaranteed, so the Skins are on the hook for a mint one way or another B) when you have the 31st ranked defense that created so few turnovers you need better players, period. Briggs will be a good start.

[urobm]

I fully agree with you there. We need to get the 31 or the 37 and something else.



Actually while Anderson/Branch/Adams/Carriker/Moss are top 20 picks right now, there is some serious talent from pick 25-75 on the Dline. Right off the top of my head: Quentin Moses, Justin Harrell, Jay Moore, Ikaika Alama-Francis and Ryan McBean will be steals there.

Whats the scoop on this guy Alama-Francis, Ive heard from a few sources he could be the steal of the draft. Is he that good?

[akhhorus]

Whats the scoop on this guy Alama-Francis, Ive heard from a few sources he could be the steal of the draft. Is he that good?

He's a project, so don't expect him to give much in year one. From what I see, I see a DT more than a DE. He should bulk up to 320 and be a 2 gapper. He probably doesn't have the skills/quickness for DE imo.

[shally]

I've pretty much refrained from commenting on this deal (purposely I may add), but when I skim through some of the pages there seems to be a recurring theme that I simply don't understand: Why is there this huge ASSUMPTION by some that if this deal is done then that means that Cooley is surely gone from DC? I don't know if this has been addressed and I will not look in on the hundreds of posts that have already occurred, so if this has been asked/answered, someone bring me up to speed with how this discussion is progressing on that particular part of the equation.

i believe that it is a false assumption made by some on this board.
to me there is zero linkage between the 2 actions (trade and signing of cooley)

[urobm]

I wouldn't have any problem throwing in Lemar.


I dont support this trade in anyway, but Lamar has starting experience on the outside and inside. We wouldnt be getting the better part of this deal. Briggs could even possibly be a bust in our system. The system in Chicago really displayed his strengths, and not to say he is not a good LB, but who is to say he will perform at that level with us. There are so many questions. How will he play once he gets the contract he covets.

[danny's stogie]

i believe that it is a false assumption made by some on this board.
to me there is zero linkage between the 2 actions (trade and signing of cooley)

Or the thought that signing Briggs somehow precludes them from improving the Dline.

[Red Bear]

I dont support this trade in anyway, but Lamar has starting experience on the outside and inside. We wouldnt be getting the better part of this deal. Briggs could even possibly be a bust in our system. The system in Chicago really displayed his strengths, and not to say he is not a good LB, but who is to say he will perform at that level with us. There are so many questions. How will he play once he gets the contract he covets.

well, lemar is in the final year of his contract. with briggs playing the weakside we could move rocky to back up washington on the strongside or perhaps take some reps on the middle this offseason. and even tho hes nothing special, we still have khary campbell who can backup fletcher should something happen. as far as transition to our defense and getting the big payday, you could argue any player is a risk to sign, which is true whether its a free agent or draft pick.

[urobm]

He's a project, so don't expect him to give much in year one. From what I see, I see a DT more than a DE. He should bulk up to 320 and be a 2 gapper. He probably doesn't have the skills/quickness for DE imo.


There is so much depth at DE in this draft, i really think we could address three areas in this draft. If handled correctly I really think that #6 pick could turn into Moses, Merriwether, and Kareem Brown.

Not knocking Jaamal Anderson at all because I love the young man, but to put it bluntly, we need picks (bottom line).

[akhhorus]

There is so much depth at DE in this draft, i really think we could address three areas in this draft. If handled correctly I really think that #6 pick could turn into Moses, Merriwether, and Kareem Brown.

Not knocking Jaamal Anderson at all because I love the young man, but to put it bluntly, we need picks (bottom line).

Like Miami players? And there's still no way Gibbs takes merriweather.

[urobm]

well, lemar is in the final year of his contract. with briggs playing the weakside we could move rocky to back up washington on the strongside or perhaps take some reps on the middle this offseason. and even tho hes nothing special, we still have khary campbell who can backup fletcher should something happen. as far as transition to our defense and getting the big payday, you could argue any player is a risk to sign, which is true whether its a free agent or draft pick.


I agree with you, but I still think Briggs would be more of a luxury pickup. I hate to keep beating this point to the ground, but why give up so much and think so highly of Mcintosh, then just push him to side.

[urobm]

Like Miami players? And there's still no way Gibbs takes merriweather.


How do you feel about Aaron Rousse? I just cant get the image of Merriwether and Taylor roaming around in the secondary. Aside from his charater issues, the guy can play corner or either safety positon. Remember though, never say never. Ive seem some wacky things happen on draft day, so nothing surprises me.

[akhhorus]

How do you feel about Aaron Rousse?

A Lb, not a safety. He might be worse than arch in coverage.

I just cant the image of Merriwether and Taylor roaming around in the secondary. Remember though, never say never. Ive seem some wacky things happen on draft day, so nothing surprises me.

Exhibit A why we won't take him(seconds 26-32) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR4l0vMSrlc)

Exhibit B: his shooting incident.

His talent doesn't outweight his character problems--especially with the NFL set to start cracking down on bad seeds.

[urobm]

A Lb, not a safety. He might be worse than arch in coverage.



Exhibit A why we won't take him(seconds 26-32) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR4l0vMSrlc)

Exhibit B: his shooting incident.

His talent doesn't outweight his character problems--especially with the NFL set to start cracking down on bad seeds.

Well my friend you have valid points, and I cant dispute the character issues. I just feel that if Merriwether somehow drops to the 3rd, you have to take a chance on him. If it wasnt for the character issues, he would be a top 20. Ofcourse thats if we acquire a 3rd as well.

[akhhorus]

Well my friend you have valid points, and I cant dispute the character issues. I just feel that if Merriwether somehow drops to the 3rd, you have to take a chance on him. If it wasnt for the character issues, he would be a top 20. Ofcourse thats if we acquire a 3rd as well.

Doubtful, even without those. He was 25-40 material, the new rules on off the field incidents might drop him a full round. There's a lot of 2nd round talent at safety this year.

[urobm]

Doubtful, even without those. He was 25-40 material, the new rules on off the field incidents might drop him a full round. There's a lot of 2nd round talent at safety this year.

LOL ok you win no Merriwether (maybe?)

[bosshog001]

This whole thing pisses me off. Every team wants a piece of Danny and his total disregard for draft picks. Trade 2 seconds for a second. Trade 2 firsts and a 3rd for the 25th pick. Everybody's eyes must light up when the Redskins call.

The 6th for Briggs and the 31st is a joke, asking for more is ridiculous.

[redskin_rich]

Geez, last time I checked in here, we were still on the 3rd thread. Now there is 170 posts on a 4th thread.

I skimmed through this, is there anything new at all?

[akhhorus]

This whole thing pisses me off. Every team wants a piece of Danny and his total disregard for draft picks. Trade 2 seconds for a second. Trade 2 firsts and a 3rd for the 25th pick. Everybody's eyes must light up when the Redskins call.

Not to be picky, but it was 1 first and a 3rd and 4th for the 25th pick in 05.

And again, we would be getting a first rounder back, so we're not giving up any draft picks.

[danny's stogie]

Geez, last time I checked in here, we were still on the 3rd thread. Now there is 170 posts on a 4th thread.

I skimmed through this, is there anything new at all?

Apparently we have now figured out that if the Skins sign Briggs they won't be able to afford their 6th round pick in 2015.

[redskin_rich]

Apparently we have now figured out that if the Skins sign Briggs they won't be able to afford their 6th round pick in 2015.
Ah.. well, carry on then... :)


No news is good news, as far as I'm concerned.

[RedskinsDave]

Someone kill this dead horse already.

[greatest2]

Ah.. well, carry on then... :)


No news is good news, as far as I'm concerned.

yup, no news about briggs deal done, good news

[skinsfan36]

im glad the skins have denied the apparent counter offer of throwing extra things in i think we keep the pick and trade down with atlanta in the end and pick up a 3rd or even possibly a 3rd,4th

[SkinsFan4Life2003]

Someone kill this dead horse already.

what he said

[urobm]

Someone kill this dead horse already.

PLEASE!!!

[shally]

PLEASE!!!

it's never gonna be over.. until he either re signs long term or is traded elsewhere

[skinsfan36]

it's never gonna be over.. until he either re signs long term or is traded elsewhere
what about after we trade down with someone else or draft with our 6? lol

[shally]

what about after we trade down with someone else or draft with our 6? lol

no.. because the problem for chicago still does not go away..even after the draft.. we could still see some kind of post draft trade, including next years picks or players

[SpicyMcHaggis]

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1963/diethreadqw3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[skinfanjon]

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1963/diethreadqw3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

LOL....Its obvious the lack of actual football is killing us.

[HanburgerBum]

I don't consider swapping picks a high cost. If they lost a pick, then yes, but since they get another first rounder in return it's a good deal for the Skins.



Briggs would be the Skins' youngest starting linebacker next season, that's getting younger. And why do you keep glossing over the parameters of the deal? Would the Skins suddenly get older if they drafted 31st instead of 6th?



You're nuts if you think that MW was a better player in Indy than Briggs has been for the Bears. That was your original statement, not this specious comment about who would be better as a Skin.

One thing that no one bothers to mention is that the 6th pick would likely recieve as much in guaranteed money as Briggs would, while a late-first costs significantly less. The 6th pick is as much of a risk as Briggs, likely more, but Briggs + pick 31 is much less a risk than just pick 6.


Actually, I did NOT say anything about Marcus Washington's play in Indy. Please look up my post (No. 93). What I said was that I think it to be in doubt whether Briggs will be as good for the Skins as MW has been for the Skins. Why should I care how good Briggs was in Chicago or how good MW was in Indy? I want to know how good each is/will be for Washington. MW has proven his worth here, Briggs has not.

You are right that if the Skins kept the No. 6, they wouldn't get younger in comparison to picking at No. 31. But, there appears to be ample opportunity to trade down and get multiple first-day choices. That will get the team younger.

Keeping the No. 6 pick would be a softer cap hit than signing Briggs--probably by about 5 million in guaranteed money. Why is that not a good thing considering the fact this team is constantly looking for cap space?

You don't consider the cost of flipping No. 6 with No. 31 to be high? Well, I could not disagree more. Since this is more subjective than anything else, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

[HanburgerBum]

My Source (http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/395932)
2004: 0.5 sacks, 1 Int(returned for a TD), 9 passes defended
2005: 2 sacks(one ending Ramsey in DC), 2 Ints(1 returned for an TD), 9 passes defended, 3 forced fumbles, 2 recovered fumbles
2006: 1 sack, 2 Ints, 8 passes defended, 4 forced fumbles, 1 recovered fumble

During these same three years, Marcus Washington has had 16.5 sacks, 18 passes defended, 1 Int, 6 fumbles forced, 5 recovered. And Briggs beats him in tackles 363 to 286.



You're right to a point, but we've seen a LB from a similar system make the transition.



I completely disagree. The cost is in our favor with getting Briggs back.



Briggs is 26 now(27 in november). So they wouldn't be that much younger(Gaines Adams will be 24 by the start of the 07 season, Alan Branch will be 23 by the end of the 07 season). And again, back to the list of #6 picks of late. Their "credentials" haven't amounted to much. The 31st picks are still high talented picks.



I love the draft pick trades, and there are some potential partners for the skins, but if you think we'll get 3-4 first day picks, you're kidding yourself. Unless Calvin Johnson or Adrian Peterson dropped to 6, I would be shocked if the skins got more than a 3rd and a 4th. Atlanta isn't going give up more than a 3rd to move up to 6(if they would even do that).



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.



They have our 2nd rounder, and they won't give us the 31 and 37 along with Briggs for the 6. No one is that stupid.



The Bears' GM said that.



This team needs talent on defense. Old or young. Just bringing in a bunch of rookies won't suddenly make us into a contender in 07 and 08.



Except, again(for the 40th time) we aren't trading away picks here. We're staying the first round and picking up one of the top OLBs in the league right now. How exactly is that making the skins worse?


I stand corrected on Briggs' turnovers created. But, I note with interest that in the same period, Marcus Washington had 13 more such turnovers. Can you assure me that Briggs will be as good for the Skins as MW has been for them? And, MW cost NOTHING by way of compensation.

If you think the cost of flipping No. 6 and No. 31 is not high, and No. 31 plus Briggs is worth more than No. 6, we can agree to disagree.

You are undoubtedly right that trading with Atl probably wouldn't get more than a third. But, if this draft is as deep as you say, a third rounder would be nothing to sneeze at.

Yes, the proposed Briggs trade now would still keep Washington in the first round (although barely), but trading down to Denver or NE would bring considerably more first-day picks. In a deep draft, that could mean 3 starters.

The Bears wouldn't be stupid enough to also give up a second rounder because nobody is that stupid? Well, the Skins did just that when they coughed up a second rounder in the Portis/Bailey trade. Besides, if Chicago won't give up more, fine. Let them stew in their own problems.

[HanburgerBum]

Kinda like Bill Polian this offseason? He's letting 5 defensive starters walk to pay Dwight Freeney(Reagor, June and Harper have left already, Doss and Morris-and perhaps Corey Simon are next). But since he won a Super Bowl, thats just smart football?


It's amusing to me that you are criticizing Bill Polian for his stewarship of Indy. Are his moves this offseason smart? I don't know for sure, but I will take my chances on a GM whose team just won a SB and appears to be a serious contender again this season. One thing for sure, he didn't sign Archuleta and trade for Brandon Lloyd and TJ Duckett.

The Skins should be so unlucky as to have someone like Polian making personnel decisions for them.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

I stand corrected on Briggs' turnovers created. But, I note with interest that in the same period, Marcus Washington had 13 more such turnovers. Can you assure me that Briggs will be as good for the Skins as MW has been for them? And, MW cost NOTHING by way of compensation.

If you think the cost of flipping No. 6 and No. 31 is not high, and No. 31 plus Briggs is worth more than No. 6, we can agree to disagree.

You are undoubtedly right that trading with Atl probably wouldn't get more than a third. But, if this draft is as deep as you say, a third rounder would be nothing to sneeze at.

Yes, the proposed Briggs trade now would still keep Washington in the first round (although barely), but trading down to Denver or NE would bring considerably more first-day picks. In a deep draft, that could mean 3 starters.

The Bears wouldn't be stupid enough to also give up a second rounder because nobody is that stupid? Well, the Skins did just that when they coughed up a second rounder in the Portis/Bailey trade. Besides, if Chicago won't give up more, fine. Let them stew in their own problems.
???

Marcus Washington:
2004: 0 INTs, 1 FFs
2005: 1 INT, 3 FFs
2006: 0 INTs, 2 FFs
Total: 7 turnovers forced.

Lance Briggs:
2004: 1 INT, 0 FF
2005: 2 INTs, 3 FFs
2006: 2 INTs, 4 FFs
Total: 12 turnovers forced.

[akhhorus]

I stand corrected on Briggs' turnovers created. But, I note with interest that in the same period, Marcus Washington had 13 more such turnovers. Can you assure me that Briggs will be as good for the Skins as MW has been for them? And, MW cost NOTHING by way of compensation.

huh? Washington didn't create more turnovers. Are you just selectively reading what you want?

If you think the cost of flipping No. 6 and No. 31 is not high, and No. 31 plus Briggs is worth more than No. 6, we can agree to disagree.

Good to know.

You are undoubtedly right that trading with Atl probably wouldn't get more than a third. But, if this draft is as deep as you say, a third rounder would be nothing to sneeze at.

Perhaps, but will a third and wher ever we pick worth more than Briggs and a first?

Yes, the proposed Briggs trade now would still keep Washington in the first round (although barely), but trading down to Denver or NE would bring considerably more first-day picks. In a deep draft, that could mean 3 starters.

Neither team likely to deal up. Any thoughts that New England would give up both their first rounders are extremely unrealistic. Denver is trying to do the same thing and deal down.

The Bears wouldn't be stupid enough to also give up a second rounder because nobody is that stupid? Well, the Skins did just that when they coughed up a second rounder in the Portis/Bailey trade. Besides, if Chicago won't give up more, fine. Let them stew in their own problems.

Again with more incongruent comparisons. There weren't any first round picks in that deal.

It's amusing to me that you are criticizing Bill Polian for his stewarship of Indy. Are his moves this offseason smart? I don't know for sure, but I will take my chances on a GM whose team just won a SB and appears to be a serious contender again this season. One thing for sure, he didn't sign Archuleta and trade for Brandon Lloyd and TJ Duckett. The Skins should be so unlucky as to have someone like Polian making personnel decisions for them.

Right, because those three moves are the reasons we went 5-11 :rolleyes: Polian has done the very things(bad signings, bad drafting, bad trades--dealing away draft picks, and keeping big names at the expense of homegrown talent) y'all demonize Gibbs and Snyder over. But since he's successful, he's a genius.

[dj_stouty]

I'm still on the fence about Briggs+31 for 6....but I'm definitely against the Skins throwing in any other players/picks to sweeten the pot. Snyder is supposed to be a cunning businessman, yet he always seems to be on the side of the negotiations that gives in, and I'm sick of it.

I keep hearing that there will be really good DE/DT talent at #31, which is probably true....but who knows if the Redskins will even draft them if they are on the board!?!? It isn't a given. With the Redskins' bad track record the past few years of drafting good defensive talent outside of the top 10 picks, I'm leery that they can muster the effort to get value talent at #31...and something tells me they would probably mess up any other first day picks in a trade down.

Think about it. Since Danny was the owner of the Redskins...name the last really good defensive football players drafted outside of the top 10 picks. Goltson? Too early to tell. Smoot? Probably. But that is it.

Sorry, but my confidence level in defensive player evaluations isn't at an all time high with the Redskins right now.

[PennSkinsFan]

I'm still on the fence about Briggs+31 for 6....but I'm definitely against the Skins throwing in any other players/picks to sweeten the pot. Snyder is supposed to be a cunning businessman, yet he always seems to be on the side of the negotiations that gives in, and I'm sick of it.

I keep hearing that there will be really good DE/DT talent at #31, which is probably true....but who knows if the Redskins will even draft them if they are on the board!?!? It isn't a given. With the Redskins' bad track record the past few years of drafting good defensive talent outside of the top 10 picks, I'm leery that they can muster the effort to get value talent at #31...and something tells me they would probably mess up any other first day picks in a trade down.

Think about it. Since Danny was the owner of the Redskins...name the last really good defensive football players drafted outside of the top 10 picks. Goltson? Too early to tell. Smoot? Probably. But that is it.

Sorry, but my confidence level in defensive player evaluations isn't at an all time high with the Redskins right now.

I was where you were at Mark, but I think I am pretty deadset against this trade now. Linebacker is not a weakness of this team, and moving Marshall to the outside where he belong and excelled when Lavar was hurt with Fletcher in the middle provides a good group of Linebackers. I do want to see the 'Skins trade down, but not the whole way to 31. We need defensive end help period.

As intrguing as Calvin Johnson is, this would be a pretty big step back for the redskins because once again, we would have likely given up significant things or picks to move up and we addressed a position that really did not need addressed. I would look to move down to 9 through 15.

[dj_stouty]

I was where you were at Mark, but I think I am pretty deadset against this trade now. Linebacker is not a weakness of this team, and moving Marshall to the outside where he belong and excelled when Lavar was hurt with Fletcher in the middle provides a good group of Linebackers. I do want to see the 'Skins trade down, but not the whole way to 31. We need defensive end help period.

As intrguing as Calvin Johnson is, this would be a pretty big step back for the redskins because once again, we would have likely given up significant things or picks to move up and we addressed a position that really did not need addressed. I would look to move down to 9 through 15.

I think you and I are closer than you think. I'd much rather stand pat at 6 and draft a lineman...OR entertain a draft day trade that puts us down to the middle of the first round. I'd have a little more confidence in the FO to properly scout a top 15 pick than I would a top 35 pick or lower. And yes...we could stand up upgrade at both the DE and DT positions...where as the LB situation has already been addressed this offseason and is more than serviceable.

[CNYSkinFan]

well Penn and DJ count me in among your feelings, although I was always against a trade for Briggs, I would have been satisfied if Chicago threw in a little more to make it right, however I believe the redskisn showed weakness in publicly craving Briggs too much and Now Chicago wants even more from us, and the sinking feeling is I think they are going to get it. We dont have the discipline to pull out of a trade when we get enamored with a guy.

[Red Bear]

well Penn and DJ count me in among your feelings, although I was always against a trade for Briggs, I would have been satisfied if Chicago threw in a little more to make it right, however I believe the redskisn showed weakness in publicly craving Briggs too much and Now Chicago wants even more from us, and the sinking feeling is I think they are going to get it. We dont have the discipline to pull out of a trade when we get enamored with a guy.

apparently its been reported by NFLN that the redskins will not make the trade if we have to give up anything extra, and the #6 overall for briggs+31 is their final offer.

i read that here:
http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20070403-124843-5547r.htm

[dj_stouty]

apparently its been reported by NFLN that the redskins will not make the trade if we have to give up anything extra, and the #6 overall for briggs+31 is their final offer.

i read that here:
http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20070403-124843-5547r.htm


The NFL Network reported the Redskins' proposal was their final offer and that talks have stalled.


Assuming the source is right...its nice to hear that the current offer from the Redskins is the FINAL offer.

Its not done yet, however; as the Bears could technically come back and accept the first offer. Although I think too much pride is involved in this trade and neither team will accept the other team's terms.

Looks like this one could be dead as of tonight...

[MONK_in_HOF]

I'm still on the fence about Briggs+31 for 6....but I'm definitely against the Skins throwing in any other players/picks to sweeten the pot. Snyder is supposed to be a cunning businessman, yet he always seems to be on the side of the negotiations that gives in, and I'm sick of it.

I keep hearing that there will be really good DE/DT talent at #31, which is probably true....but who knows if the Redskins will even draft them if they are on the board!?!? It isn't a given. With the Redskins' bad track record the past few years of drafting good defensive talent outside of the top 10 picks, I'm leery that they can muster the effort to get value talent at #31...and something tells me they would probably mess up any other first day picks in a trade down.

Think about it. Since Danny was the owner of the Redskins...name the last really good defensive football players drafted outside of the top 10 picks. Goltson? Too early to tell. Smoot? Probably. But that is it.

Sorry, but my confidence level in defensive player evaluations isn't at an all time high with the Redskins right now.

That is the only reservation I have about my preferred strategy of keeping the 6 and trading down. On a team that needs help in several areas, and with little help remaining in FA, conventional wisdom would tell me acquiring extra picks is the way to go to fill these holes. However when I consider the Skins draft history I am a bit conflicted and wonder what they would even do with extra picks.

I would love to be a fly on the wall just once when FA and draft strategy was discussed amongst the Skins FO.

[Red Bear]

Assuming the source is right...its nice to hear that the current offer from the Redskins is the FINAL offer.

Its not done yet, however; as the Bears could technically come back and accept the first offer. Although I think too much pride is involved in this trade and neither team will accept the other team's terms.

Looks like this one could be dead as of tonight...

i hope its dead soon. we need a new rumor to talk about revolving around the #6 pick

[HanburgerBum]

huh? Washington didn't create more turnovers. Are you just selectively reading what you want?



Good to know.



Perhaps, but will a third and wher ever we pick worth more than Briggs and a first?



Neither team likely to deal up. Any thoughts that New England would give up both their first rounders are extremely unrealistic. Denver is trying to do the same thing and deal down.



Again with more incongruent comparisons. There weren't any first round picks in that deal.



Right, because those three moves are the reasons we went 5-11 :rolleyes: Polian has done the very things(bad signings, bad drafting, bad trades--dealing away draft picks, and keeping big names at the expense of homegrown talent) y'all demonize Gibbs and Snyder over. But since he's successful, he's a genius.


I lumped sacks together with interceptions, fumbles forced and fumbles recovered because I don't know of a generic term for all those categories.
Certainly, sacks are just like those other plays that tend to show whether a player is an "impact" player.

Is No. 10 and a third rounder better than Briggs and No. 31? That would obviously depend upon how the drafted players (as well as Briggs) pan out. The Skins tend to overpay and come up on the short end of trades (with the exception of the Santana Moss deal). I think their draft record (first day) recently has actually been better than their trade record.

You say NE and Denver won't likely deal up for the No. 6. I guess we will never know if the Skins make the Briggs trade. Besides, there may be other teams willing to trade up on draft day as key players become available at No. 6.

Giving up a second rounder in the Portis/Bailey deal is stupid regardless whether No. 1 picks are involved or not. As a top corner, Bailey was worth more than a top RB like Portis on the market. If anything, the Skins should have gotten a sweetner instead of giving up one.

As for Polian, the guy has done a masterful job building up and maintaining the Indy franchise. I don't think you will find anyone in the NFL (with the exception of yourself) who wouldn't want him as a GM instead of whoever is calling the shots in Washington.

[HanburgerBum]

???

Marcus Washington:
2004: 0 INTs, 1 FFs
2005: 1 INT, 3 FFs
2006: 0 INTs, 2 FFs
Total: 7 turnovers forced.

Lance Briggs:
2004: 1 INT, 0 FF
2005: 2 INTs, 3 FFs
2006: 2 INTs, 4 FFs
Total: 12 turnovers forced.


From the data Akh provided, I lumped sacks together with interceptions, fumbles forced and fumbles recovered because sacks also tend to be "impact" plays.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

From the data Akh provided, I lumped sacks together with interceptions, fumbles forced and fumbles recovered because sacks also tend to be "impact" plays.
Well, I'd say that an INT is more important than a sack, but now I understand where you were getting your numbers from...certainly MW is better at getting to the QB than Briggs, even though that could depend on the defensive scheme, and on the fact that the Bears don't need to blitz their LB very often because they have pass rushers who actually pass rush..I don't know that for sure.

[danny's stogie]

Well, I'd say that an INT is more important than a sack, but now I understand where you were getting your numbers from...certainly MW is better at getting to the QB than Briggs, even though that could depend on the defensive scheme, and on the fact that the Bears don't need to blitz their LB very often because they have pass rushers who actually pass rush..I don't know that for sure.

The Bears play a strict cover-2, they don't blitz their backers, they rush their down 4. Out of curiosity these are the sack numbers for the Bears last season:

Briggs 1
Anderson 12
Ricky Manning Jr. 2
Alex Brown 7
Tank Johnson 3.5
Alfonso Boone 2.0
Tommie Harris 5
Cameron Worrell 1
Ogunleye 6.5

You know what's missing from that list....linebackers. The only one with even one sack is Briggs. Only 4 sacks out of the team's 40 total come from a position other than DT or DE. But on the flip side you know what's essential to running a cover-2....linebackers. Linebackers that are good at stopping the run, playing in space, and covering underneath zones.

[Skinz4lyfe]

I'm hoping that the rumors of restraint coming from Redskin Park is true, then I'm happy. As has been stated many times before, getting Briggs would be a luxury at this point, not a necessity. As long as our FO realizes this, we'll be alright.

[Red Bear]

The Bears play a strict cover-2, they don't blitz their backers, they rush their down 4. Out of curiosity these are the sack numbers for the Bears last season:

Briggs 1
Anderson 12
Ricky Manning Jr. 2
Alex Brown 7
Tank Johnson 3.5
Alfonso Boone 2.0
Tommie Harris 5
Cameron Worrell 1

You know what's missing from that list....linebackers. The only one with even one sack is Briggs. Only 4 sacks out of the team's 40 total come from a position other than DT or DE. But on the flip side you know what's essential to running a cover-2....linebackers. Linebackers that are good at stopping the run, playing in space, and covering underneath zones.

ogunleye never got a sack last year?

[Pet-E-Bone]

It steams me that more people aren't angry about this supposed trade. We trade up to get Rocky last year and now, the FO is basically stating that he is garbage. Then, they are willing to pay Briggs what he wants even though overpaying guys has been the staple of this franchise now for years and it never works. Also, I was listening to the radio yesterday and they gave a stat that said that 90% of pro-bowlers from the last few years were DRAFTED by the teams that they played for. So what does that mean? Free Agency and trading in this league are becoming useless so it makes no sense to me as to why the 'Skins keep going this route. Last year showed that this team had no depth and the draft brings depth. They have the 6th pick and they could probably sucker some team into giving picks. But no. Instead, the 'Skins insist of being the suckers everytime. Good work 'Skins. I love this team to death but I just feel like they have become the Kansas City Royals of the NFL. Consistant losers doing nothing right. Even the mighty Gibbs has become so cocky that they feel like they can "coach-up" any player. This is really unbelievable.....

[danny's stogie]

ogunleye never got a sack last year?

His sacks don't count because he was once rumored to get traded for Pat Ramsey. Obviously his association with Pat nullifies his sacks. Thanks for the correction, the post has been edited to include Ogun's 6.5. I double checked, that's the only person I forgot, now it totals 40.

[danny's stogie]

It steams me that more people aren't angry about this supposed trade. We trade up to get Rocky last year and now, the FO is basically stating that he is garbage. Then, they are willing to pay Briggs what he wants even though overpaying guys has been the staple of this franchise now for years and it never works. Also, I was listening to the radio yesterday and they gave a stat that said that 90% of pro-bowlers from the last few years were DRAFTED by the teams that they played for. So what does that mean? Free Agency and trading in this league are becoming useless so it makes no sense to me as to why the 'Skins keep going this route. Last year showed that this team had no depth and the draft brings depth. They have the 6th pick and they could probably sucker some team into giving picks. But no. Instead, the 'Skins insist of being the suckers everytime. Good work 'Skins. I love this team to death but I just feel like they have become the Kansas City Royals of the NFL. Consistant losers doing nothing right. Even the mighty Gibbs has become so cocky that they feel like they can "coach-up" any player. This is really unbelievable.....

I'm more steamed that they were willing to give up an extra pick to trade up for Rocky in the first place. Steamed that they want to add a pro-bowler and retain a first round selection, not at all.

[shally]

ogunleye never got a sack last year?

is that true ? he was supposed to be their big impact player

[shally]

:twak: for you

:doh: for me

[Red Bear]

is that true ? he was supposed to be their big impact player

i was asking in reference to the stats DS posted and noticed ogunleye wasnt on there. but apparently hes got 6.5 sacks from last year and DS edited his post

[bergiemoore]

Clayton has an interesting write up on the Briggs offer. Here he states that the Skins were emphatic about this being a one time offer, take it or leave it.

LINK (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2823964)

[akhhorus]

I lumped sacks together with interceptions, fumbles forced and fumbles recovered because I don't know of a generic term for all those categories.
Certainly, sacks are just like those other plays that tend to show whether a player is an "impact" player.

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.

Is No. 10 and a third rounder better than Briggs and No. 31? That would obviously depend upon how the drafted players (as well as Briggs) pan out.

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.


The Skins tend to overpay and come up on the short end of trades (with the exception of the Santana Moss deal). I think their draft record (first day) recently has actually been better than their trade record.

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

You say NE and Denver won't likely deal up for the No. 6. I guess we will never know if the Skins make the Briggs trade. Besides, there may be other teams willing to trade up on draft day as key players become available at No. 6.

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

Giving up a second rounder in the Portis/Bailey deal is stupid regardless whether No. 1 picks are involved or not. As a top corner, Bailey was worth more than a top RB like Portis on the market. If anything, the Skins should have gotten a sweetner instead of giving up one.

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.

As for Polian, the guy has done a masterful job building up and maintaining the Indy franchise. I don't think you will find anyone in the NFL (with the exception of yourself) who wouldn't want him as a GM instead of whoever is calling the shots in Washington.

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).

[hail2skins]

watch the language folks

[greatest2]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2823964

looks like we get our answer today. THere will be no counter offer, take it or leave it deal. Hopefully theydon't take it

[Lavar703]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2823964

looks like we get our answer today. THere will be no counter offer, take it or leave it deal. Hopefully theydon't take it

I think this is a big mistake, Why dont we just play Rocky Mcintosh? We dont really know how good Briggs is until he gets away from Urlacher and has to do these things with out him. I think #6 to #31 is a steep drop just to pick up another over paid player, but thats just me.

[frankez99]

I think this is a big mistake, Why dont we just play Rocky Mcintosh? We dont really know how good Briggs is until he gets away from Urlacher and has to do these things with out him. I think #6 to #31 is a steep drop just to pick up another over paid player, but thats just me.

Nope...not just you...to most rational Redskins fans as well.:)

[Dept_of_Defense]

I thought all of our linebacker problems were solved once Fletcher arrived. Moving Marshall back to the outside will be much more effective being that he's played in the middle and should be able to line himself up correctly. Somebody please tell me why we traded away our 2nd this year for Rocky McIntosh? That would explain the reason why we're even in discussions for Briggs.

[shally]

I thought all of our linebacker problems were solved once Fletcher arrived. Moving Marshall back to the outside will be much more effective being that he's played in the middle and should be able to line himself up correctly. Somebody please tell me why we traded away our 2nd this year for Rocky McIntosh? That would explain the reason why we're even in discussions for Briggs.

it is the just the opportunity to get an all pro player

[S.Taylor36]

BEARS TELL 'SKINS TO GET BENT

Several days after receiving an offer of the No. 6 overall pick in the draft in exchange for linebacker Lance Briggs and the No. 31 overall selection, the Chicago Bears have responded to the Washington Redskins.

The Bears have said "no thanks," according to Jay Glazer of FOXSports.com.

The 'Skins emerged as a candidate last week in conjunction with the league meetings in Arizona. Few league observers expected the Bears to accept the offer. Most, however, anticipated that Chicago would make a counterproposal, possibly by asking that a player like linebacker Rocky McIntosh be added to the deal.

Glazer explains that the Redskins don't want to part with McIntosh. If that's the case, then the 'Skins should simply let McIntosh play the weakside position that would have been filled by Briggs and use the No. 6 overall pick on a defensive end, or dangle the selection in exchange for a package of lower picks.

In Chicago, Briggs remains a free agent who is restrained by the franchise tag. He can sign an offer sheet with any other team. If, however, the Bears choose not to match, the Bears will be entitled to two first-round picks.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

[S.Taylor36]

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

Jay Glazer's article

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6640430

[bergiemoore]

Jay Glazer's article

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6640430

C'est la vie!

I would like to have seen Briggs in Burgundy and Gold, but not at a price that would make the Bears happy. I hope they have fun watching Briggs sit out the first 10 games.

[bergiemoore]

Jay Glazer's article

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6640430

Does this mean we can rant about something else now?

[S.Taylor36]

C'est la vie!

I would like to have seen Briggs in Burgundy and Gold, but not at a price that would make the Bears happy. I hope they have fun watching Briggs sit out the first 10 games.

As much as I am happy that this deal did not go through, I don't see it as being dead. If Danny boy wants him he'll work something out to get him.

But right now I'm :)

[MAATOPDOGG]

Bears reject trade offer for Briggs

As of right now, Lance Briggs isn't going anywhere.

FOXSports.com has learned that the Bears have turned down the Redskins' offer of trading the sixth pick of April's draft for Chicago's Pro Bowl linebacker and the 31st pick of the draft. Redskins sources say Bears GM Jerry Angelo has phoned Washington with his decision.
For now the deal is dead, but that doesn't necessarily mean the deal is lost for good. It appears that the main sticking point is the fact that the Bears believe the pot isn't sweet enough as is.

Chicago would love the Redskins' young linebacker Rocky McIntosh in the deal to play Briggs' weakside linebacker position. Trading Briggs would leave Chicago without a starting weakside LB. However, the Redskins sources contend they do not want to part with McIntosh, even though he'll either have to move positions or wait for an injury to Briggs if he is to get on the field over the next couple of years.

One Redskins official said that, despite the logjam, they view McIntosh as a good young player who has too much upside to part with. Perhaps one option would be for the Redskins to include McIntosh but then ask Chicago for more as well to even it out a bit.

At this point, however, the two sides have hit a stalemate, putting them right back where they started before the NFL Owners Meeting last week in Phoenix.

Jay Glazer is a senior NFL writer for FOXSports.com.


Link : http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6640430

[CNYSkinFan]

1.....2....3....

merge

[BurgundyNGold]

Good. Let this be over with already so we can focus on getting better next year.

[S.Taylor36]

Does this mean we can rant about something else now?

If you'd like we can get into more detail about the Frost re-singing? Hopefully now we can concentrate on trading our draft pick to get multiple picks.

[MAATOPDOGG]

Wow, the Bears really don't think much of our FO.

Rocky McIntosh AND the 6th overall pick
for
Lance Briggs AND the 31st overall pick

wow!

[firehawk157]

YES! Not that I am relieved one way or another on this trade, I'm just glad we could put an end to this talk!

[GolfFreak]

Great news!!!

[bergiemoore]

As much as I am happy that this deal did not go through, I don't see it as being dead. If Danny boy wants him he'll work something out to get him.

But right now I'm :)

Personally, I'm hopeful that this is an indication that the Skins FO has grown a pair. They made an offer that would have given the Bears good value for a player that obviously doesn't want to be there, while at the same time maintaining a day one draft pick. I think that this was a fair offer for both parties involved. According to Clayton from ESPN, the Skins are unwilling to budge from this position. He described it as a "final offer" that had to be accepted or rejected by today. Obviously the Bears FO felt they deserved more, and I'm hoping that the Skins stick to their guns and walk away.

Is this a sign that Gibbs et al are learning to play hardball?

Will Briggs make good on his promise to sit out?

One thing is for certain, Drew Rosenhaus will make this a media event if no trade happens before the draft.

[Poindexter]

I will be done with the Redskins if they deal McIntosh. Briggs is a good player, but McIntosh can develop into a Briggs if given the opportunity. McIntosh is very explosive and good young player. The skins are driving me crazy. This draft better be a good one or I am just going to watch college football. The skins are going to make me have a nervous breakdown.

I would even be against dealing Marshall. Marshall is a very religious person who seems to have great values, football smarts, a good work ethic and is a leader on this team, you dont just throw that away either. For get Briggs, draft DL, find some real coaches without the big ego and lets play some ball.

[BurgundyNGold]

I will be done with the Redskins if they deal McIntosh. Briggs is a good player, but McIntosh can develop into a Briggs if given the opportunity. McIntosh is very explosive and good young player. The skins are driving me crazy. This draft better be a good one or I am just going to watch college football. The skins are going to make me have a nervous breakdown.

I would even be against dealing Marshall. Marshall is a very religious person who seems to have great values, football smarts, a good work ethic and is a leader on this team, you dont just throw that away either. For get Briggs, draft DL, find some real coaches without the big ego and lets play some ball.
He seemed to be pretty holey in the middle last year, lol.

[bergiemoore]

If you'd like we can get into more detail about the Frost re-singing?
:sleeping:

Hopefully now we can concentrate on trading our draft pick to get multiple picks.

This is too wide a topic to generate any real focused enthusiasm, like this marathon posting on Briggs (Did we set a record?).

...Just as well, I have work to do.

[Skinz4lyfe]

Not mad at this. I'm just glad our FO didn't budge on their ridiculous counter-offer. Not I sincerely hope that we don't get overzealous and trade up for Calvin Johnson.

[shally]

good.. time to move on

let them stew.. my guess is that drew ratchets up the pressure.. should be a real circus

[bergiemoore]

I will be done with the Redskins if they deal McIntosh. Briggs is a good player, but McIntosh can develop into a Briggs if given the opportunity. McIntosh is very explosive and good young player. The skins are driving me crazy. This draft better be a good one or I am just going to watch college football. The skins are going to make me have a nervous breakdown.

I would even be against dealing Marshall. Marshall is a very religious person who seems to have great values, football smarts, a good work ethic and is a leader on this team, you dont just throw that away either. For get Briggs, draft DL, find some real coaches without the big ego and lets play some ball.

Why is it, if Marshal is such a good leader, that in the signings of Smoot and Fletcher, their leadership was heralded as a much need attribute? It seems to me that the defense played flat last year, missing tackles and playing without enthusiasm (except for Washington). This is a reflection of Marshal's leadership.

[firehawk157]

I can't wait to see Rocky in full time action, he just seemed to fast as all get out and everywhere at once... Combine it with a decent DE/DT and we could have a VERY stout run D

[dj_stouty]

Merged.

No need to have 2 threads talking about and killing the same rumor.

[Keino]

I hate this thread. I hate Dallas. I hate this thread. I hate dallas. I hate this thread. I hate Dallas.

Hate hate hate hate.

Gotta go. Im thirsty, and they have riptide rush Hateraide in the kitchen.

[akhhorus]

I will be done with the Redskins if they deal McIntosh. Briggs is a good player, but McIntosh can develop into a Briggs if given the opportunity. McIntosh is very explosive and good young player. The skins are driving me crazy. This draft better be a good one or I am just going to watch college football. The skins are going to make me have a nervous breakdown.

You know, if dealing away Rocky will cause you to abandon the skins, then you are really shaky as a fan anyways imo.

I would even be against dealing Marshall. Marshall is a very religious person who seems to have great values, football smarts, a good work ethic and is a leader on this team, you dont just throw that away either. For get Briggs, draft DL, find some real coaches without the big ego and lets play some ball.

And looked as fast a Red Foxx last year. I don't care about his faith. His leadership is nice, but Patten was considered a major leader also. But if he can't play, he can't play.

[firehawk157]

And looked as fast a Red Foxx last year. I don't care about his faith. His leadership is nice, but Patten was considered a major leader also. But if he can't play, he can't play.

I agree 100% here. Team leaders help, but only if they're not liabilities. Anyways, how many team leaders do we need on defense??? We have Marshall, Springs, Wynn and Daniels. Too many chiefs???

[LASkin]

I still wonder why we don't offer a straight up trade: McIntosh for Briggs, perhaps with a low round pick thrown in. The Bears want him Rocky, fine. The skins keep their #6 pick and take a DL.

Alternatively, how about the #6 and Rocky for Briggs, and the Bears #1, 2, and 3? Logjam at LB eliminated, we have a Pro Bowler there instead of a project, and more picks to beef up the lines.

[techskinsfan]

I still wonder why we don't offer a straight up trade: McIntosh for Briggs, perhaps with a low round pick thrown in. The Bears want him Rocky, fine. The skins keep their #6 pick and take a DL.

Alternatively, how about the #6 and Rocky for Briggs, and the Bears #1, 2, and 3? Logjam at LB eliminated, we have a Pro Bowler there instead of a project, and more picks to beef up the lines.
i could see something heating back up around the draft...glad this is over with though

im glad we stood our ground saying we wouldnt give up another player...we would be doing them the favor of takin a malcontent of their hands...we should be asking for the pot sweetened not them in my opinion

[70chip-on-1]

Finally!! Our first step in re-establishing our credibility at the negotiating table... walk away. Our reputation was always a willingness to sweeten the pot and pay more. If we learn to walk away more, we'll earn some clout at the table. This time we proposed a fair trade.. they countered with a 1-sided scenario and we walked!

#1 Rule in Negotiation: If you can't walk away, you can't negotiate.

[firehawk157]

i could see something heating back up around the draft...glad this is over with though

im glad we stood our ground saying we wouldnt give up another player...we would be doing them the favor of takin a malcontent of their hands...we should be asking for the pot sweetened not them in my opinion

Definitely... I think we showed any potential trade partners that they better bring something if they want to get the #6.

[thickskin]

praise the lord. 7.2 mill to ride the pine. anyone think they can actually deall him so someone else?

[PennSkinsFan]

EXCELLENT, great NEWS!

[shally]

praise the lord. 7.2 mill to ride the pine. anyone think they can actually deall him so someone else?

even better than that.. no long term deal... 7.2 mil for what, 6 games, works out to over 1 mil per game.. that is a lot per tackle.

let them stew

[Skins57]

Glad to hear this deal is dead. Now lets trade down on draft day and add a few more picks

[Vonslydog]

even better than that.. no long term deal... 7.2 mil for what, 6 games, works out to over 1 mil per game.. that is a lot per tackle.

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