PDA

View Full Version : Briggs Deal Back On? (Continued)


PennSkinsFan
04-27-2007, 08:01 AM
http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=40754

Link to old thread is above.

Stats discussion anew right here.

Skins7ny
04-27-2007, 09:13 AM
http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=40754

Link to old thread is above.

Stats discussion anew right here.

I hope that this is just puffing by the FO.
Several other teams have made inquiries, including the Giants, and maybe the Skins (even with the Bears' approval) is trying to raise the price for Briggs.
I know that with our FO, where there has been smoke, there usually has been fire, and they have never shown themselves to be savvy enough to play other teams in pre-draft manuevers, but I am hoping against hope that this is just a typical pre-draft story that deserves no credence. Briggs does not fit our system, wants too much money that he does not deserve, we are already stocked at the position (assuming MW is healthy) and we have multiple needs more pressing than LB. If it turns out to be true, it is further evidence that the FO has not learned their lesson, it is still playing fantasy football with a real team, and their recent lamenting about giving away (Gibbs' words at the press conference) draft picks only means that they regret not having picks to use to make a big splash on marquee players like Calvin Johnson. I am going to try not to worry about it today, but I hope they are not really making a deal for Briggs.

BurgundyNGold
04-27-2007, 09:18 AM
:doh:

CNYSkinFan
04-27-2007, 09:24 AM
:doh:
my thoughts exactly. I just put a VQ article in the blog about it.

http://hailredskins.blogspot.com/2007/04/vision-quest-just-say-no-to-briggs.html

Hr fan
04-27-2007, 09:26 AM
What if the Briggs trade is followed by #31 for someone like Kris Jenkins and maybe a 4th? 2 all pros for 1 pick.

RedskinsDave
04-27-2007, 09:31 AM
What if the Briggs trade is followed by #31 for someone like Kris Jenkins and maybe a 4th? 2 all pros for 1 pick.

Not a chance.

Hr fan
04-27-2007, 09:36 AM
And what would Dungy et al pay to get Briggs who DOES fit their system?

akhhorus
04-27-2007, 09:36 AM
And what would Dungy et al pay to get Briggs who DOES fit their system?

They couldn't possibly afford him cap wise.

NCskinsfanatic
04-27-2007, 09:39 AM
They couldn't possibly afford him cap wise.
I'm fine with this deal, as long as we get Briggs and their 31st for our 6 we should get two guys that could legitametly contribute on D this season...

Hr fan
04-27-2007, 09:43 AM
They couldn't possibly afford him cap wise.

That's what they say about us all the time. What counts is guaranteed money. The player usually doesn't care whether this is a signing bonus or defered. The Colts are a champion with a weaker D and Cato June gone.

LATrueRedskin
04-27-2007, 09:43 AM
I'm looking for more picks. If we can get another reasonable pick out of the Bears, I'm all for it. I'd rather not make the deal that has been offered, because I think we can trade down twice from where we are right now, and still be in the first round; picking up more first day picks in the process.

akhhorus
04-27-2007, 09:49 AM
That's what they say about us all the time. What counts is guaranteed money. The player usually doesn't care whether this is a signing bonus or defered. The Colts are a champion with a weaker D and Cato June gone.

Yes, but we don't have the massive contracts the colts do. They've let 6 defenders(5 starters) walk this offseason, and none of them would have cost that much. The Freeney deal prevents them from doing anything really.

Hr fan
04-27-2007, 09:52 AM
I'm looking for more picks. If we can get another reasonable pick out of the Bears, I'm all for it. I'd rather not make the deal that has been offered, because I think we can trade down twice from where we are right now, and still be in the first round; picking up more first day picks in the process.

Our FO doesn't seem to agree with you, and JG has said both they are looking for an impact player and that no rookie will be an impact player. BTW, I DO agree with you. The question is what would another team give up for #31? Unlike #6 it is much easier to trade #31 for multiple picks, since the point value difference is much smaller. Also, will Harrell be available at #31?

cmdlost29
04-27-2007, 09:58 AM
Guys stop and think about this for a moment. If the front office was worried about Rocky's knees then why didn't we trade him when the Bears made the first offer demanding him? If he does have bad knees then we would have countered and demanded another pick thrown in that deal without telling the Bears. When Coles was known as Toes we dumped him, if Rocky was really bad off we would have dumped him as well. We choose to flat out turn that deal down instead. That tells me that this business about Rocky's knees is bullcrap.

Now this Briggs trade bothers me big time. When it was first reported I was on the side of pull the trigger, now I am not. I believe the front office is placing too much on the resume of Briggs and not placing enough importance on the fact that Briggs played next to Urlacher. Brian funneled everything to Briggs when they were on the feild. In Washington opposing teams will funnel things the other direction to avoid Briggs, big difference. Another problem with Briggs is the difference between the two teams D-Line play. Chicago consistantly got pressure on the QB where as Washington could not. There is no one this offseason on our DL that makes me think we will get any more pressure on the opposing QB next season then what we had last season.

If we land Briggs our LB's will be tackeling machines once again but thats after our opponants average 4 yards per down against us. I will go on the record right now and say it is my belief that if we get Briggs he will be a good but not great player and will never play up to a level that justifies ignoring our biggest weakness in favor of getting him. By no fault of his own, Briggs has been lucky to play in a great system and has been benifited from it. I see zero pro bowls in Briggs if he comes to Washington and I see in two years a great regret over this move felt by all the fans.

The problem with Briggs is the same problem I have with Laron Landry. They are not what we need. Sure they are good players but will never help our Defense they way we need it right now. Washington has these options:

1. Move up in the draft and get CJ. I don't support this move because it says to the league "our defense is going to give up 3-4 TD's a game and our only hope for winning will be to win shoot outs against you". But thats the way it stands so I can understand morgaging our future next season for this guy in hopes of winning now. Again I don't support this move but doing it would make our offense very powerful, and maybe squeak us like

2. Suck it up and select a DL. This is the right move for us to make but I believe we don't have anyone on the coaching staff that can scout DL or DE's very well right now so were ignoring this need or over paying for anyone to toss in there. Football is won and lost in the trenches, thats why we won 5 games last season. This is the right move to make as it addresses our greatest need but its going to take 2-3 years to build a good line.


That's the deal folks. It doesn't matter if we move down for more picks. If we trade #6 for Briggs or draft Landry we have ignored our greatest need and next offseason we are looking at a new system, new head and defensive coachs, and another high round draft pick.

skins111111
04-27-2007, 10:02 AM
I'm pullin for a stud DL, weatehr its 6th overall or we trade down a few spots pick up anpther pick and still get a stud. If we land Briggs I will have to give the FO the benifit of doubt.......can't really see them doing that with the info as I understand it.......Rocky is going to be large this year, MW is at 100%, Fletcher is a stud and Marshall is Quality debth at all 3 positions????? if this is true we have much higher needs than LBer

Stinkfist0
04-27-2007, 10:06 AM
If Quinn is on the board, Redskins should try to trade down to #9 with Miami and add pick #60 from the Dolphins.

Then they could trade the #9 for Briggs and the #37

That way the Dolphins would have Brady Quinn and still a high second rounder.

The Bears would have #9 and #31

The Skins would get Briggs, the #37 and the #60.

Hr fan
04-27-2007, 10:09 AM
The problem with Briggs is the same problem I have with Laron Landry. They are not what we need. Sure they are good players but will never help our Defense they way we need it right now. Washington has these options:

1. Move up in the draft and get CJ. I don't support this move because it says to the league "our defense is going to give up 3-4 TD's a game and our only hope for winning will be to win shoot outs against you". But thats the way it stands so I can understand morgaging our future next season for this guy in hopes of winning now. Again I don't support this move but doing it would make our offense very powerful, and maybe squeak us like

2. Suck it up and select a DL. This is the right move for us to make but I believe we don't have anyone on the coaching staff that can scout DL or DE's very well right now so were ignoring this need or over paying for anyone to toss in there. Football is won and lost in the trenches, thats why we won 5 games last season. This is the right move to make as it addresses our greatest need but its going to take 2-3 years to build a good line.


That's the deal folks. It doesn't matter if we move down for more picks. If we trade #6 for Briggs or draft Landry we have ignored our greatest need and next offseason we are looking at a new system, new head and defensive coachs, and another high round draft pick.

Agree with your thinking, but look at the FO's flat statement (JG & Snyder) that they want an immediate impact and that no rookie can provide this. I am trying to think of scenarios that give us a vet that can help (prefer Jenkins scenario for this) while obtaining a 1st with the player. I also prefer to leverage this obtained pick for more picks rather than a single player, but that again will depend on the FO. IMHO if the FO has the vet impact player they are more likely to then look at the draft as a source of talent.

Brokenstriker
04-27-2007, 10:10 AM
:banghead:

dj_stouty
04-27-2007, 10:12 AM
PSF - I added a "?" to the title. I didn't want anyone to be initially scared by the title.

Hr fan
04-27-2007, 10:14 AM
If Quinn is on the board, Redskins should try to trade down to #9 with Miami and add pick #60 from the Dolphins.

Then they could trade the #9 for Briggs and the #37

That way the Dolphins would have Brady Quinn and still a high second rounder.

The Bears would have #9 and #31

The Skins would get Briggs, the #37 and the #60.

Love it, particularly the irony of getting our own 2nd back. I still don't think Briggs is the one for us, but Snyder clearly does. Under your scenario we would have Briggs, a DE and another 1st day pick. I love it.

dj_stouty
04-27-2007, 10:14 AM
Agree with your thinking, but look at the FO's flat statement (JG & Snyder) that they want an immediate impact and that no rookie can provide this.

Don't believe everything you hear out of Redskins Park the week before the draft.

shally
04-27-2007, 10:17 AM
Don't believe everything you hear out of Redskins Park the week before the draft.

especially when the scenarios get ever more complicated

Hr fan
04-27-2007, 10:22 AM
Don't believe everything you hear out of Redskins Park the week before the draft.

I could only wish that this is fog, but the steady trend of the FO since Gibbs II started makes this possible disinformation all too real. I think Gibbs is haunted by past 1st round mistakes (color in Desmond Howard and Heath Schuler here), and has often said that they can not afford to make a mistake with this pick. P.S. JGs statements well predate this last week, and he has always struck me as speaking with candor to a fault - it is one reason why his players love him.

akhhorus
04-27-2007, 10:26 AM
I could only wish that this is fog, but the steady trend of the FO since Gibbs II started makes this possible disinformation all too real. I think Gibbs is haunted by past 1st round mistakes (color in Desmond Howard and Heath Schuler here), and has often said that they can not afford to make a mistake with this pick. P.S. JGs statements well predate this last week, and he has always struck me as speaking with candor to a fault - it is one reason why his players love him.

What? So, when he supposedly told KWII that he was going to pick him, knowing that he would run out and tell the media, how does that fit into your paradigm? Or when he had every offensive assistant hang around Philip Rivers for a long time? Or when he said last year: "we're not interested in a LB" or "We don't think we're going to trade up" and no one was rumoring we would, how does that also fit into your paradigm? Gibbs pumps out tons of smoke before each draft and none of it is really true.

shally
04-27-2007, 10:28 AM
What? So, when he supposedly told KWII that he was going to pick him, knowing that he would run out and tell the media, how does that fit into your paradigm? Or when he had every offensive assistant hang around Philip Rivers for a long time? Or when he said last year: "we're not interested in a LB" or "We don't think we're going to trade up" and no one was rumoring we would, how does that also fit into your paradigm? Gibbs pumps out tons of smoke before each draft and none of it is really true.

i still think the KW2 stuff came from an agent rather than from gibbs

dj_stouty
04-27-2007, 10:31 AM
i still think the KW2 stuff came from an agent rather than from gibbs

How so? KW2 said Gibbs personally told him he would be drafted by the Redskins. He basically called Joe a liar.

akhhorus
04-27-2007, 10:33 AM
i still think the KW2 stuff came from an agent rather than from gibbs

No, KWII said that Gibbs told him personally that the skins would take him.

Redskin4Life
04-27-2007, 10:37 AM
If Quinn is on the board, Redskins should try to trade down to #9 with Miami and add pick #60 from the Dolphins.

Then they could trade the #9 for Briggs and the #37

That way the Dolphins would have Brady Quinn and still a high second rounder.

The Bears would have #9 and #31

The Skins would get Briggs, the #37 and the #60.
I like it but I think we can trade down more than once.... even though my dream scenario would seem a bit too ridiculous, I think this part of it could happen:

Trade to MIA: 2nd (#60) & #9 for #6 (QB Quinn)
Trade to BUF: '08 2nd & #12 for #9 (RB Peterson)
Trade to CAR: '08 2nd & #14 for #12 (DT Branch)
Trade to CHI: #31 & LB Briggs for '08 2nd & #14 (TE Olsen)

We would then have our full allotment of picks next year (basically we traded our 4th for a 2nd) and this year as well (Briggs would be our 3rd rounder).

redskin_rich
04-27-2007, 10:40 AM
I could only wish that this is fog, but the steady trend of the FO since Gibbs II started makes this possible disinformation all too real. I think Gibbs is haunted by past 1st round mistakes (color in Desmond Howard and Heath Schuler here), and has often said that they can not afford to make a mistake with this pick. P.S. JGs statements well predate this last week, and he has always struck me as speaking with candor to a fault - it is one reason why his players love him.
Gibbs didn't draft Heath Shuler, that happened 2 years after Gibbs retired. Gibbs, candor? LOL! Maybe with the players in private but most definitely not with the media. Gibbs has always been one of, if not the most boring interviews to watch of any coach, because he never says anything.

shally
04-27-2007, 10:43 AM
No, KWII said that Gibbs told him personally that the skins would take him.

so, is it KW2 failing to parse what gibbs said or is gibbs a bald faced liar ?

warpaint
04-27-2007, 10:44 AM
have read so many things that i cant remember where i read it , but who ever
wrote the article said both landry and okoye had been told by the redskins that they would be drafted by the skins,if did not trade down.

shally
04-27-2007, 10:45 AM
have read so many things that i cant remember where i read it , but who ever
wrote the article said both landry and okoye had been told by the redskins that they would be drafted by the skins,if did not trade down.

somebody is going to be unhappy..LOL

Hr fan
04-27-2007, 10:50 AM
What? So, when he supposedly told KWII that he was going to pick him, knowing that he would run out and tell the media, how does that fit into your paradigm? Or when he had every offensive assistant hang around Philip Rivers for a long time? Or when he said last year: "we're not interested in a LB" or "We don't think we're going to trade up" and no one was rumoring we would, how does that also fit into your paradigm? Gibbs pumps out tons of smoke before each draft and none of it is really true.

When discussing targets he will pump out smoke with the best of them. I agree. However, when discussing FO philosophy he seems to have more candor, and past actions concerning the relative value of draft choices vs immediate impact would tend to give these pronouncements more weight. Please understand, I am hunting for a middle ground where their clear preference for veterans is balanced by moving down, not out of the draft. Hence my preference for the Jenkins scenario, which results in a need area being addressed while not sacrificing the entire first day in 2007. I am hoping that we do not resurect the worst feature of George Allen.

akhhorus
04-27-2007, 10:50 AM
so, is it KW2 failing to parse what gibbs said or is gibbs a bald faced liar ?

I would guess the former. Gibbs probably told him that they would seriously consider taking him if he was there; BUT I wouldn't put it past Gibbs to tell The Broken One that knowing he would tell everyone in creation about what Gibbs said as a strategy.

Redskin4Life
04-27-2007, 10:50 AM
somebody is going to be unhappy..LOL
Hopefully both of them... since we'll be trading down.

warpaint
04-27-2007, 11:34 AM
Hopefully both of them... since we'll be trading down.
from one tarheel to another ,like your idea, but with the redskins doing the picking maybe this should be in your wildest dreams lol

Hr fan
04-27-2007, 11:50 AM
Gibbs didn't draft Heath Shuler, that happened 2 years after Gibbs retired. Gibbs, candor? LOL! Maybe with the players in private but most definitely not with the media. Gibbs has always been one of, if not the most boring interviews to watch of any coach, because he never says anything.

Westbrook, etc. You are looking at an organizational culture that is leery, not just Gibbs.

Redskin4Life
04-27-2007, 11:50 AM
from one tarheel to another ,like your idea, but with the redskins doing the picking maybe this should be in your wildest dreams lol
Despite the fact that I'm from NC, saying I'm a Tarheel is the farthest thing from the truth a person could ever say... I've been a Wolfpack man through and through. But I don't hold anything against anyone from UNC... just hate the program. :beer:

As to the trade down, I have a funny feeling about the FO and this draft being completely different than what we're used to. I really think that the crazy Dream Draft I have in my signature could happen for the most part. And if it does, I'll be a happy man....:Pickle:

AliBabba
04-27-2007, 11:52 AM
Despite the fact that I'm from NC, saying I'm a Tarheel is the farthest thing from the truth a person could ever say... I've been a Wolfpack man through and through. But I don't hold anything against anyone from UNC... just hate the program. :beer:

As to the trade down, I have a funny feeling about the FO and this draft being completely different than what we're used to. I really think that the crazy Dream Draft I have in my signature could happen for the most part. And if it does, I'll be a happy man....:Pickle:
If what's in your sig happens I will give you one of my season tix this year and I will pay for a taxicab 612 miles roundtrip for all 8 home games this year

warpaint
04-27-2007, 11:59 AM
Despite the fact that I'm from NC, saying I'm a Tarheel is the farthest thing from the truth a person could ever say... I've been a Wolfpack man through and through. But I don't hold anything against anyone from UNC... just hate the program. :beer:

As to the trade down, I have a funny feeling about the FO and this draft being completely different than what we're used to. I really think that the crazy Dream Draft I have in my signature could happen for the most part. And if it does, I'll be a happy man....:Pickle:
didnt mean you were a carolina man , being cary is so close to raliegh, n.c. is still known as the tarheel state isnt it ?

SkinsfaninNJ
04-27-2007, 12:00 PM
have read so many things that i cant remember where i read it , but who ever
wrote the article said both landry and okoye had been told by the redskins that they would be drafted by the skins,if did not trade down.
This is Goodell's first draft. Maybe we can sneak two names by him.:)

James F. Quinn
04-27-2007, 12:00 PM
not placing enough importance on the fact that Briggs played next to Urlacher. Brian funneled everything to Briggs when they were on the feild.


Others in this forum have pointed out how well Briggs continued to play when Urlacher was out with injuries and they were missing their DT.

making the deal and getting a 31st pick and something in the second round (which we should hold out for, or no deal), means that we would still be able to draft quality DLmen to address our need.

warpaint
04-27-2007, 12:04 PM
Others in this forum have pointed out how well Briggs continued to play when Urlacher was out with injuries and they were missing their DT.

making the deal and getting a 31st pick and something in the second round (which we should hold out for, or no deal), means that we would still be able to draft quality DLmen to address our need.
i am with you on the getting something in the second round.

James F. Quinn
04-27-2007, 12:09 PM
Agree with your thinking, but look at the FO's flat statement (JG & Snyder) that they want an immediate impact and that no rookie can provide this. I am trying to think of scenarios that give us a vet that can help (prefer Jenkins scenario for this) while obtaining a 1st with the player. I also prefer to leverage this obtained pick for more picks rather than a single player, but that again will depend on the FO. IMHO if the FO has the vet impact player they are more likely to then look at the draft as a source of talent.

But if we all think the Team's conflicting statements and actions (move up, move down, looking at all the poss. first rounders, what our true needs are, etc.) ar smoke screens, so might this remark about immediate impact. All smokescreen, all the time.

James F. Quinn
04-27-2007, 12:12 PM
so, is it KW2 failing to parse what gibbs said or is gibbs a bald faced liar ?

The president of a company I used to work for once said that it's not a lie if you say it for business reasons.

VegasSkinsFan
04-27-2007, 12:15 PM
Others in this forum have pointed out how well Briggs continued to play when Urlacher was out with injuries and they were missing their DT.

making the deal and getting a 31st pick and something in the second round (which we should hold out for, or no deal), means that we would still be able to draft quality DLmen to address our need.

Thats the only way i would take the deal #6 for #31, Briggs, and a 2nd. Briggs will be a help especially if the injuries to Rocky and Marcus are worse than we know. With the 2 picks, yes we could still start to revamp our dline. Go Skins !!!!!!

Redskin4Life
04-27-2007, 12:48 PM
didnt mean you were a carolina man , being cary is so close to raliegh, n.c. is still known as the tarheel state isnt it ?
Sorry, you're right. A person from the state of NC is a Tarheel. I just hate being associate with UNC. Anytime I meet someone from out of state, they always ask if I went to UNC. No engineering program there so no reason to go.... not that it would have made a difference for me. Some people are UNC fans and some are Anything But fans.

Redskin4Life
04-27-2007, 12:51 PM
If what's in your sig happens I will give you one of my season tix this year and I will pay for a taxicab 612 miles roundtrip for all 8 home games this year
I'll hold you to it, Ali... ;)

cmdlost29
04-27-2007, 01:12 PM
Others in this forum have pointed out how well Briggs continued to play when Urlacher was out with injuries and they were missing their DT.

Even with Chicago missing there DT and Urlacher they are still better defensively then we are. This doesn't mean anything to me.

I also want to point out that trading down too far could very well leave us in a bad position as well. For example if we did this deal andf got the 31st pick but the DLmen that are still on the board are too far of a reach to take at 31 or the ones we wanted are already gone then really what have we gained? We might try to trade down from 31 again but if we did that we could be in the same position. So we'd be forced to not address this need completely because no one is there for us.

Its this reason I don't want to move from 6 to 31 and wouldn't mind moving to the 9-12 area picking up a pick. If we did that we ensure we get one of the DLmen we want. Dropping too far down could really hurt us as well.

bgforever
04-27-2007, 01:18 PM
Even with Chicago missing there DT and Urlacher they are still better defensively then we are. This doesn't mean anything to me.

I also want to point out that trading down too far could very well leave us in a bad position as well. For example if we did this deal andf got the 31st pick but the DLmen that are still on the board are too far of a reach to take at 31 or the ones we wanted are already gone then really what have we gained? We might try to trade down from 31 again but if we did that we could be in the same position. So we'd be forced to not address this need completely because no one is there for us.

Its this reason I don't want to move from 6 to 31 and wouldn't mind moving to the 9-12 area picking up a pick. If we did that we ensure we get one of the DLmen we want. Dropping too far down could really hurt us as well.

Yeah, I like the move from #6 to #8 to #9 very, very much.

Yeah that is what is really smarting with the D. See MW, Marshall, even newly acquired Fletcher, with support from Campbell, know a lot more about NFL style D's facing NFL offenses. McIntosh was forced to read the abc's of benchwarming and how NOT to succeed at LB in the NFL. So we basically still have him in working past game 1 (about the equivalent of total time) in his mind. That's not on par with what they had in mind and Lindsey set that course. Shame.

I think this is the only reason that Briggs figures so heavyly. MW, LF, Briggs, with Marshall giving a huge boost in backing two spots, with very good game eperience and in playoffs, big games. This I CAN see. rotating McIntosh with WSL, SLB can do even more damage, but isn't likely to happen. Rocky's a player that is destined to be a starting LB for years. So the Skins are looking at two scenarios of getting IMMEDIATE impact like Fletcher, while giving Rocky more of a chance in Chicago.

The problem with ALL of this is, we are not in the future yet, to see what happened from this :)

akhhorus
04-27-2007, 01:19 PM
Even with Chicago missing there DT and Urlacher they are still better defensively then we are. This doesn't mean anything to me.


In the front 7 without Harris and Johnson, they aren't significantly better than we were. Their whole defense is predicated on DT play(Tampa-2 defense). When Urlacher was gone, Harris wasn't as good as he is now and they weren't the defense they were last year--and yet Briggs was still as dominating. In 2006, when both Harris and Johnson were out, Briggs' play didn't suffer at all. Thats very telling considering how much of an impact a good DT has on the play of the Lbers.

Redskin4Life
04-27-2007, 01:26 PM
Even with Chicago missing there DT and Urlacher they are still better defensively then we are. This doesn't mean anything to me.

I also want to point out that trading down too far could very well leave us in a bad position as well. For example if we did this deal andf got the 31st pick but the DLmen that are still on the board are too far of a reach to take at 31 or the ones we wanted are already gone then really what have we gained? We might try to trade down from 31 again but if we did that we could be in the same position. So we'd be forced to not address this need completely because no one is there for us.

Its this reason I don't want to move from 6 to 31 and wouldn't mind moving to the 9-12 area picking up a pick. If we did that we ensure we get one of the DLmen we want. Dropping too far down could really hurt us as well.
I honestly don't think the frontrunners are that great in this draft...

Jamaal Anderson's only been a DE for 1.5 seasons... prior to college, he was playing WR?!?!?
Gaines Adams has BUST written all over him... unless he's in a Tampa 2 D.
Alan Branch isn't a pass rusher, he's a run stopper... so we would still need a DE or create pass rush through our LBs.
Amobi Okoye could be a one year wonder... his first three seasons he had 66 tackles total but this year he had 55?? Makes you wonder....

Trade down and get more players/picks.

Lavar703
04-27-2007, 02:21 PM
I think the problem is were letting the Bears set all the stipulations in this trade, we should have laughed them out of the building when they asked for Rocky Mcintosh, even Lemar Marshall for that matter. If we are able to get Briggs, #31 and a second or third then its worth it. Briggs is a damn good player, but is it worth giving up a shot at Landry or Okoye? Not to mention were going to pay Lance big big money, i dont know right now, im kind of torn about the whole deal.

S.Taylor36
04-27-2007, 02:28 PM
If we were to get Briggs, we'd have to bring him in for a physical. Then we'd have to sign him because we can't afford his $7.2 million franchise tag, so something would have to be done soon if this is gonna happen. Last I heard is that John Clayton said that the Bears would want Marshall in the deal and that the Redskins may be willing to do it.

openallnight
04-27-2007, 02:29 PM
I can't believe this insane Briggs rumor has been perpetuated for so long. I'll be happy when the draft is over if for no other reason than to finally put this nightmarish trade scenario to rest.

cmdlost29
04-27-2007, 02:31 PM
Its been reported that John Clayton is on the record saying we will send the Bears LEMAR MARSHAL as well as the 6th pick for Briggs and #31

For those who thought this was a good trade for us do you still think it is?

SkinKing
04-27-2007, 02:32 PM
Why would we even think about this trade with the Bears? How can they be so sure is he not a product of the system? They have a very strong front 4 with Urlacker in the middle. Kinda reminds me of the Trotter move from philly to be a bust then back to philly and flourish. And the Bears are requesting a LB in return with this trade? They should be throwing something in there our way to make the deal more sweet for us. But they understand other organizations have took advantage of us so why shouldn't they? Would not suprise me if we make this trade and if we do, I will hate watching the draft tomorrow..

akhhorus
04-27-2007, 02:32 PM
Its been reported that John Clayton is on the record saying we will send the Bears LEMAR MARSHAL as well as the 6th pick for Briggs and #31

For those who think thought this was a good trade for us do you still think it is?

Yep. We would still have Rocky and be getting Briggs.

RedskinsDave
04-27-2007, 02:37 PM
Its been reported that John Clayton is on the record saying we will send the Bears LEMAR MARSHAL as well as the 6th pick for Briggs and #31

For those who thought this was a good trade for us do you still think it is?

Nope. I think it's horrible. They should be giving us more, not the other way around as always.

cmdlost29
04-27-2007, 02:38 PM
Yep. We would still have Rocky and be getting Briggs.

And we'd still have a busted up old line that got the fewest sacks last year ever and who gave up a ton of yards rushing to everyone.

This is a horrible trade for us. Marshall is a good football player and can play multiple positions, we don't need Briggs right now, we can get him next offseason as a free agent.

akhhorus
04-27-2007, 02:40 PM
And we'd still have a busted up old line that got the fewest sacks last year ever and who gave up a ton of yards rushing to everyone.

You do realize that the skins wouldn't be drafting a LB at 31 also, right?

This is a horrible trade for us. Marshall is a good football player and can play multiple positions, we don't need Briggs right now, we can get him next offseason as a free agent.

I'll get you the tape of Marshall in 2006 when Redd Foxx(as he is now) is faster than Marshall was. He can play multiple positions, but he's fallen apart physically.

shally
04-27-2007, 02:47 PM
I honestly don't think the frontrunners are that great in this draft...

Jamaal Anderson's only been a DE for 1.5 seasons... prior to college, he was playing WR?!?!?
Gaines Adams has BUST written all over him... unless he's in a Tampa 2 D.
Alan Branch isn't a pass rusher, he's a run stopper... so we would still need a DE or create pass rush through our LBs.
Amobi Okoye could be a one year wonder... his first three seasons he had 66 tackles total but this year he had 55?? Makes you wonder....

Trade down and get more players/picks.

i think the knock on anderson for only 1 season is bogus... he was the best DE in the SEC.. and that is enough for me..

shally
04-27-2007, 02:48 PM
Its been reported that John Clayton is on the record saying we will send the Bears LEMAR MARSHAL as well as the 6th pick for Briggs and #31

For those who thought this was a good trade for us do you still think it is?

better than rocky plus a number 6 pick...

marshall looked spent last year for physical reasons.. how much better will he be this year ?

dj_stouty
04-27-2007, 02:49 PM
Nope. I think it's horrible. They should be giving us more, not the other way around as always.

Exactly. Lemar has experience playing both Will and Mike in the GW system. He is valuable depth for the LB corp.

We gift wrapped Arch and sent him to Chicago for a measly 6th or 7th round pick. The least they could do if scratch our backs a bit.

Why are we the ones who always give in?

shally
04-27-2007, 02:59 PM
Exactly. Lemar has experience playing both Will and Mike in the GW system. He is valuable depth for the LB corp.

We gift wrapped Arch and sent him to Chicago for a measly 6th or 7th round pick. The least they could do if scratch our backs a bit.

Why are we the ones who always give in?

because, when it comes down to it, gibbs really does not prize draft picks-- except as a tool to get players that he wants

if marshall is a throw in then to me it means they feel he is spent physically because he has always been a smart player and a hard worker.. and it also says they still believe in rocky's worth long term

Biggie
04-27-2007, 03:01 PM
I don't get it. What in the world is wrong with McIntosh?

akhhorus
04-27-2007, 03:03 PM
I don't get it. What in the world is wrong with McIntosh?

Maybe nothing. Rocky could move to MLB or SLB.

shally
04-27-2007, 03:03 PM
I don't get it. What in the world is wrong with McIntosh?

he was not able to convince either his p[osition coach or the DC that he belonged on the field over a clearly deficient holdman last year..

hopefully an offseason has corrected that.

LATrueRedskin
04-27-2007, 03:08 PM
Maybe nothing. Rocky could move to MLB or SLB.

Most likely strong-side, IMO. I don't see him playing in the middle. I think his athleticism could best be used outside.

shally
04-27-2007, 03:12 PM
Most likely strong-side, IMO. I don't see him playing in the middle. I think his athleticism could best be used outside.

i think it depends upon the health of washington and how quick a student of the game rocky is..
london fletcher will be calling defenses as long as he is here. so it would be 2 years before rocky fills that roll.
how healthy marcus is is the wild card

Keino
04-27-2007, 03:15 PM
Exactly. Lemar has experience playing both Will and Mike in the GW system. He is valuable depth for the LB corp.

We gift wrapped Arch and sent him to Chicago for a measly 6th or 7th round pick. The least they could do if scratch our backs a bit.

Why are we the ones who always give in?

According to JLC the Skins are standing firm on the original offer.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/

akhhorus
04-27-2007, 03:16 PM
Most likely strong-side, IMO. I don't see him playing in the middle. I think his athleticism could best be used outside.

And then from 2008-2013 our OLBs are Briggs and Rocky. Whats wrong with that? That would be great for our Defense long term.

shally
04-27-2007, 03:29 PM
And then from 2008-2013 our OLBs are Briggs and Rocky. Whats wrong with that? That would be great for our Defense long term.

i think so..

still, it leaves the d line un-fixed and i wont feel comfortable about next season until it is..

i am beginning to think that maybe post draft the skins trade for an established d lineman

silverspring
04-27-2007, 04:04 PM
I stand by my original opinion and that is that this deal is a foolish waste of resources. Even if we technically get the upper hand on the trade it is just frivilous.
-As far as I know we don't need a linebacker. To me that ends the deal right there.
-We certainly need help on the Dline and while that problem could be solved with top talent at #15 I do not think we are going to get so lucky at #31
-There is a high probability that we will get some really outstanding offers for our #6 on draft day if certain players fall
-We shouldn't do a deal just cause it is good there should be some need behind it
-I know we have cap room and all but i truly worry about resigning our own people if we do this

shally
04-27-2007, 04:29 PM
I stand by my original opinion and that is that this deal is a foolish waste of resources. Even if we technically get the upper hand on the trade it is just frivilous.
-As far as I know we don't need a linebacker. To me that ends the deal right there.
-We certainly need help on the Dline and while that problem could be solved with top talent at #15 I do not think we are going to get so lucky at #31
-There is a high probability that we will get some really outstanding offers for our #6 on draft day if certain players fall
-We shouldn't do a deal just cause it is good there should be some need behind it
-I know we have cap room and all but i truly worry about resigning our own people if we do this

i think it is highly speculative that we get any deals worth taking on draft day

GreenspanDan
04-27-2007, 04:36 PM
i too doubt there will be much demand for that #6 pick. everyone in that area is trying to trade down. turning that pick into two defensive players makes real sense to me.

Skins7ny
04-27-2007, 04:40 PM
Others in this forum have pointed out how well Briggs continued to play when Urlacher was out with injuries and they were missing their DT.

making the deal and getting a 31st pick and something in the second round (which we should hold out for, or no deal), means that we would still be able to draft quality DLmen to address our need.

If Jerry Angelos was willing to trade a 2nd-rounder to go with Thomas Jones to the Jets for their 2nd-rounder, he should be willing to throw in a 2nd with Lance Briggs.

I would still be against the trade in that scenario, but obviously less so.
I just don't think the guy is worth the huge contract we apparently already have agreed to give him. He doesn't fit our scheme-although I think JLF (or someone) reported today that we are adopting a lot of Chicago's scheme this off-season. If that is true-why did we re-sign Smoot, who proved in Minnesota that he cannot play in a cover-2?

akhhorus
04-27-2007, 04:43 PM
For what its worth, Peach King throws some water on this:

Link (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/04/27/draft.five.things/index.html)

I think it's a longshot that the Redskins deal for Lance Briggs. There's been some frost between the Bears and 'Skins.

shally
04-27-2007, 04:52 PM
For what its worth, Peach King throws some water on this:

Link (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/04/27/draft.five.things/index.html)

frost is one thing.. but the bears are in a crack over this.. the more briggs is disgruntled the more it poisons their squad.

i think they will take the best deal they can get for briggs.. might even end up being a 2008 pick when all is said and done

skinsfan36
04-27-2007, 05:41 PM
on warpathinsiders they say if this doesnt happen tommorow or byu tommorow dont be surprised if we give up a second next year for briggs(i agree). after think about this im ok with this trade i was mad originally because i want okoye or anderson or carriker but i believe a real good de will be available at 31 in anthony spencer so we would get a good de,briggs(pretty sweet deal). id like to get a 4th or 3rd out of them though since we have the leverage. now my case for spencer is that he was first in tackles for aloss last year in the big ten. this is a running conference for the exception of really ohio state. this guy is going to be a beast,but the thing is briggs has to sign his tender for this to happen and the draft is approaching fast.

greatest2
04-27-2007, 06:14 PM
jus heard 2 seconds ago on ESPN that the BRIGGS DEAL IS OFF!!!!

John Clayton reports that they "run out of time." no link, heard on ESPN.


i for one am happy its off

skinsfan36
04-27-2007, 06:17 PM
jus heard 2 seconds ago on ESPN that the BRIGGS DEAL IS OFF!!!!

John Clayton reports that they "run out of time." no link, heard on ESPN.


i for one am happy its off
im ok with this not happening too trade down 2-5 spots and still get an impact player and a 3rd or if someone is desperate a 2nd

akhhorus
04-27-2007, 06:18 PM
jus heard 2 seconds ago on ESPN that the BRIGGS DEAL IS OFF!!!!

John Clayton reports that they "run out of time." no link, heard on ESPN.

i for one am happy its off

The Briggs deal was never "on", which means this isn't dead yet. It won't be dead until Briggs signs a long term deal with the bears or is dealt somewhere.

greatest2
04-27-2007, 06:22 PM
The Briggs deal was never "on", which means this isn't dead yet. It won't be dead until Briggs signs a long term deal with the bears or is dealt somewhere.

i think what John Clayton said is thattalks have broken off again. I agree, can't rule it totally out, but it looks like a very VERY low probability now

lorimike
04-27-2007, 06:24 PM
What if the Briggs trade is followed by #31 for someone like Kris Jenkins and maybe a 4th? 2 all pros for 1 pick.<<<<

akhhorus
04-27-2007, 06:25 PM
i think what John Clayton said is thattalks have broken off again. I agree, can't rule it totally out, but it looks like a very VERY low probability now

Clayton also said that we were offering LeMar Marshall and JLC flatly denied that. I'll believe it when I see it.

skinsfan36
04-27-2007, 06:25 PM
The Briggs deal was never "on", which means this isn't dead yet. It won't be dead until Briggs signs a long term deal with the bears or is dealt somewhere.
yeah the deal may still happen but for a pick next year that like a 2nd,he doesnt have enough time to sign his tender and get this trade through(physical) my prediction if this deal goes through since the bears have no leverage 2008 2nd round pick for lance briggs.

lorimike
04-27-2007, 06:29 PM
Lance Briggs might be the most overrated player of all time. I can't believe the Skins would even entertain this trade for Briggs. I am sick and tired of watching teams convert third downs on us. One more 230 lb weak side linebacker ain't gonna make a difference. We need someone who can sack the QB, cause fumbles, hurry the QB into interceptions etc etc. GM's around the league must just laugh at us. If there's a free agent out there that will cost us some draft picks we'll find him. All a team needs to do is tie a tag to a player and we'll friggin want em! We are the fools of the NFL

akhhorus
04-27-2007, 06:34 PM
Lance Briggs might be the most overrated player of all time. I can't believe the Skins would even entertain this trade for Briggs. I am sick and tired of watching teams convert third downs on us. One more 230 lb weak side linebacker ain't gonna make a difference. We need someone who can sack the QB, cause fumbles, hurry the QB into interceptions etc etc. GM's around the league must just laugh at us. If there's a free agent out there that will cost us some draft picks we'll find him. All a team needs to do is tie a tag to a player and we'll friggin want em! We are the fools of the NFL

Briggs is the only RFA or tagged player we've gone after this offseason. And he won't cost us any draft picks since we would be getting a first rounder back.

AliBabba
04-27-2007, 06:42 PM
Lance Briggs might be the most overrated player of all time. I can't believe the Skins would even entertain this trade for Briggs. I am sick and tired of watching teams convert third downs on us. One more 230 lb weak side linebacker ain't gonna make a difference. We need someone who can sack the QB, cause fumbles, hurry the QB into interceptions etc etc. GM's around the league must just laugh at us. If there's a free agent out there that will cost us some draft picks we'll find him. All a team needs to do is tie a tag to a player and we'll friggin want em! We are the fools of the NFL

???

OCSkinzFan
04-27-2007, 07:24 PM
Lance Briggs might be the most overrated player of all time. I can't believe the Skins would even entertain this trade for Briggs. I am sick and tired of watching teams convert third downs on us. One more 230 lb weak side linebacker ain't gonna make a difference. We need someone who can sack the QB, cause fumbles, hurry the QB into interceptions etc etc. GM's around the league must just laugh at us. If there's a free agent out there that will cost us some draft picks we'll find him. All a team needs to do is tie a tag to a player and we'll friggin want em! We are the fools of the NFL
You know you're right! He's never missed a start in the last 4 years and he only has 441 tkls. A player that never gets hurt and starts every game should have way more than that! I mean, there was even 1 guy that had more solo tackls than Briggs last year. And in the postseason Briggs had 29 solo tackles (more than anyone) but the guy that came in second (CATO June) had 12! So Briggs didn't even get twice as many solo tackles as he did in the post-season. Gosh he is overrated!

akhhorus
04-27-2007, 07:27 PM
You know you're right! He's never missed a start in the last 4 years and he only has 441 tkls. A player that never gets hurt and starts every game should have way more than that! I mean, there was even 1 guy that had more solo tackls than Briggs last year. And in the postseason Briggs had 29 solo tackles (more than anyone) but the guy that came in second (CATO June) had 12! So Briggs didn't even get twice as many solo tackles as he did in the post-season. Gosh he is overrated!

He's too good for us, I think thats what he meant :lol1:

WinnpegSkinsFan
04-27-2007, 07:52 PM
For what it's worth, Schefter on NFL network thought the Briggs deal was unlikely to be consumated. He said the price was too high - I think he meant from the perspective of the Bear's demands, but I'm unsure. Sorry, no link.

this sure doesn't cement anything - Clayton & Schefter have been wrong before.

lorimike
04-27-2007, 08:07 PM
You know you're right! He's never missed a start in the last 4 years and he only has 441 tkls. A player that never gets hurt and starts every game should have way more than that! I mean, there was even 1 guy that had more solo tackls than Briggs last year. And in the postseason Briggs had 29 solo tackles (more than anyone) but the guy that came in second (CATO June) had 12! So Briggs didn't even get twice as many solo tackles as he did in the post-season. Gosh he is overrated!<<<<

I'm sorry.... Were you and I watching the same Superbowl? I must have missed Briggs tackling Dominique Rhodes and intercepting Manning. .... My advice to you is get real! Defensive lineman control the defense - not the other way around

akhhorus
04-27-2007, 08:09 PM
<<<<

I'm sorry.... Were you and I watching the same Superbowl? I must have missed Briggs tackling Dominique Rhodes and intercepting Manning. .... My advice to you is get real! Defensive lineman control the defense - not the other way around

So.....he was an All Pro in 2006, and only lead his team in tackles in the super bowl(13) and that makes him a stiff? LOL.

lorimike
04-27-2007, 08:21 PM
Briggs is the only RFA or tagged player we've gone after this offseason. And he won't cost us any draft picks since we would be getting a first rounder back.<<<

Yes, but last year we lost our third and fourth for Brandon Llyod. We gave up this years 2nd to move up for McIntosh. My point is that we always find a way to give up picks. Smart teams keep their picks and sign those players who cost no draft compensation. For the money Briggs wants we could have signed Adalius Thomas for no draft compensation. I can go on and on with this. We didn't just trade Champ Bailey for Portis- we traded a high 2nd rounder and Champ for Portis. Whatever the deal it always seems to work out in favor of the other team. We traded a 1st and 3rd for Laverneous Coles. 2 years later the Jets got Coles back. We traded a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd rounder for Brad Johnson and let him go 2 years later. This why we are always playing " whack a mole". Footbal is not basketball- one players impact is minimized by the fact that footbal is an injury prone game of 22 starters. This team needs a combination on quantity and quality- not just a handfull of superstars and a bunch of NFL castoffs. Look at the playoff teams and you'll find that they built through the draft and accesorized through free agency. Not the other way around. The insanity of the Redskins strategy is that it has been employed for quite a long time yet they keep expecting a different result. Stupid Stupid Stupid!

lorimike
04-27-2007, 08:26 PM
So.....he was an All Pro in 2006, and only lead his team in tackles in the super bowl(13) and that makes him a stiff? LOL.<<<

Big deal! We've brought in pro bowlers here before. Jeramiah Trotter was a pro bowler too until he came here. Then we cut him and he went back to the Eagles and then he made the Pro Bowl again. But never while in a Skins uniform. The point is, we need a team of real Redskins not mercanaries. A Better strategy would be to draft, develope and resign our own players instead of always coveting other teams talent. Because the player you end up getting hurts the team he left more than he helps the team he goes to.

akhhorus
04-27-2007, 08:26 PM
<<<

Yes, but last year we lost our third and fourth for Brandon Llyod. We gave up this years 2nd to move up for McIntosh. My point is that we always find a way to give up picks. Smart teams keep their picks and sign those players who cost no draft compensation.

Ok, you're right. But the Briggs deal doesn't cost us picks.

For the money Briggs wants we could have signed Adalius Thomas for no draft compensation.

Except that Thomas is 7 years older than Briggs. If we're going to pay that much, might as well get a young player.

I can go on and on with this. We didn't just trade Champ Bailey for Portis- we traded a high 2nd rounder and Champ for Portis. Whatever the deal it always seems to work out in favor of the other team. We traded a 1st and 3rd for Laverneous Coles. 2 years later the Jets got Coles back.

The Portis deal isn't working out for the skins? And we got Moss for Coles, how's that working out?(and the first Coles deal was under Spurrier ,not Gibbs).

We traded a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd rounder for Brad Johnson and let him go 2 years later.

And that was thanks to our great GM Chuckie Casserly. So much for a real GM fixing all the problems.

This why we are always playing " whack a mole". Footbal is not basketball- one players impact is minimized by the fact that footbal is an injury prone game of 22 starters. This team needs a combination on quantity and quality- not just a handfull of superstars and a bunch of NFL castoffs. Look at the playoff teams and you'll find that they built through the draft and accesorized through free agency. Not the other way around. The insanity of the Redskins strategy is that it has been employed for quite a long time yet they keep expecting a different result. Stupid Stupid Stupid!

Except that they've done it once(lloyd) in the last 3 offseasons(so far). I'm sorry, but I can't draw a pattern when it happens once. Even if we do a Briggs deal, thats twice in 2 years, and it would make 3 of these types moves you hate in 4 offseasons. Thats not patternistic behavior and isn't our strategy when its a minor part of the means to acquire players.

shally
04-27-2007, 08:27 PM
<<<

Big deal! We've brought in pro bowlers here before. Jeramiah Trotter was a pro bowler too until he came here. Then we cut him and he went back to the Eagles and then he made the Pro Bowl again. But never while in a Skins uniform. The point is, we need a team of real Redskins not mercanaries. A Better strategy would be to draft, develope and resign our own players instead of always coveting other teams talent. Because the player you end up getting hurts the team he left more than he helps the team he goes to.

not always so...but certainly there are enough cautionary tales to make it worrisome

akhhorus
04-27-2007, 08:28 PM
<<<

Big deal! We've brought in pro bowlers here before. Jeramiah Trotter was a pro bowler too until he came here. Then we cut him and he went back to the Eagles and then he made the Pro Bowl again. But never while in a Skins uniform.

OMG, maybe we should never sign any players from anywhere ever again! :rolleyes: And Briggs wasn't just a pro bowler, he was an All Pro. If you don't know what that is, maybe you shouldn't be discussing NFL football?

The point is, we need a team of real Redskins not mercanaries. A Better strategy would be to draft, develope and resign our own players instead of always coveting other teams talent. Because the player you end up getting hurts the team he left more than he helps the team he goes to.

And(for the 5th time), the skins would get Briggs and a 1st rounder. Why is this concept lost on you?

lorimike
04-27-2007, 08:29 PM
You know you're right! He's never missed a start in the last 4 years and he only has 441 tkls. A player that never gets hurt and starts every game should have way more than that! I mean, there was even 1 guy that had more solo tackls than Briggs last year. And in the postseason Briggs had 29 solo tackles (more than anyone) but the guy that came in second (CATO June) had 12! So Briggs didn't even get twice as many solo tackles as he did in the post-season. Gosh he is overrated!<<<

Marvcus Patton and Stanley Richard used to make a lot of tackles too. Of course that was after the runner gained 7 yards. Real tackles are tackles that cause fumbles( something we struggled with last year). Real tackles are called sacks. Real tackles are made in the other teams backfield. so give me the tackle stat- It's non-sense!

akhhorus
04-27-2007, 08:32 PM
<<<

Marvcus Patton and Stanley Richard used to make a lot of tackles too. Of course that was after the runner gained 7 yards. Real tackles are tackles that cause fumbles( something we struggled with last year). Real tackles are called sacks. Real tackles are made in the other teams backfield. so give me the tackle stat- It's non-sense!

So, again: should we just not sign anyone because we got burned by X player back in Y year? Neither Patton or Richard play the same position as Briggs(Patton was a SLB).

lorimike
04-27-2007, 08:34 PM
OMG, maybe we should never sign any players from anywhere ever again! :rolleyes: And Briggs wasn't just a pro bowler, he was an All Pro. If you don't know what that is, maybe you shouldn't be discussing NFL football?



And(for the 5th time), the skins would get Briggs and a 1st rounder. Why is this concept lost on you?<<

The concept is not lost on me for cryin out loud! Yes it is a swap of firsts and we get Lance Briggs. But the 6th overall and the 31st overall are like night and day. I feel that 2 out of the 5 top rated defensive lineman will be pereniall pro bowl defensive lineman capable of double digit sack totals for nearly a decade. And a good yound defensive lineman will have far more impact on our defense than a weak side linebacker. I don't think we need Briggs but if we must then simply wait until after the draft and go after him. At some point the Bears will be desparate. And furthermore I would rather the team use the cap space to resign Cooley now than wasting the money on Briggs

lorimike
04-27-2007, 08:37 PM
So, again: should we just not sign anyone because we got burned by X player back in Y year? Neither Patton or Richard play the same position as Briggs(Patton was a SLB).<<<

We've been employing the free agency stategy for a decade and the end results have largely been the same. Don't you think it's time to get better at drafting and resigning our own players?

akhhorus
04-27-2007, 08:38 PM
<<

The concept is not lost on me for cryin out loud! Yes it is a swap of firsts and we get Lance Briggs. But the 6th overall and the 31st overall are like night and day.

You're right. The #31 picks are turning out better recently than the #6s. It is like night and day.
Last 5 #6: Ryan Sims, Jonathan Sullivan, KWII, PacMan Jones, Vernon Davis
Last 5 #31: Robert THomas, Nnamdi Asomugha, Rashaun Woods, Mike Patterson, Kelly Jennings

Seems like #6 is a bad place to draft of late.

I feel that 2 out of the 5 top rated defensive lineman will be pereniall pro bowl defensive lineman capable of double digit sack totals for nearly a decade. And a good yound defensive lineman will have far more impact on our defense than a weak side linebacker.

And we can still get a good young DLman at 31. Only we would have Briggs also.

I don't think we need Briggs but if we must then simply wait until after the draft and go after him. At some point the Bears will be desparate. And furthermore I would rather the team use the cap space to resign Cooley now than wasting the money on Briggs

They can have both easily. Especially with Arch and brunell coming off the cap. Signing Briggs doesn't mean Cooley walks(unless he's demanding 55-60 million).

akhhorus
04-27-2007, 08:40 PM
<<<

We've been employing the free agency stategy for a decade and the end results have largely been the same. Don't you think it's time to get better at drafting and resigning our own players?

Except that under Gibbs we had two years where we signed a lot of fas and 2 years where we haven't(05 and 07). So no, we haven't been employing the same strategy for 'a decade'. Marty and Casserly tried the draft centered strategy and failed miserably. Snyder with Spurrier tried the FA and RFA strategy and failed. Gibbs is having balance.

shally
04-27-2007, 08:41 PM
<<

The concept is not lost on me for cryin out loud! Yes it is a swap of firsts and we get Lance Briggs. But the 6th overall and the 31st overall are like night and day. I feel that 2 out of the 5 top rated defensive lineman will be pereniall pro bowl defensive lineman capable of double digit sack totals for nearly a decade. And a good yound defensive lineman will have far more impact on our defense than a weak side linebacker. I don't think we need Briggs but if we must then simply wait until after the draft and go after him. At some point the Bears will be desparate. And furthermore I would rather the team use the cap space to resign Cooley now than wasting the money on Briggs


the history of the 6th pick vrs the 31st pick is very enlightening.. go back and check and you will see that the results are more than comparable picking 31st
it is not giving away the store. plus this draft is not said to be particularly strong for impact players at the top. a lot of guys who appear to be very similar in potential

lorimike
04-27-2007, 08:43 PM
You're right. The #31 picks are turning out better recently than the #6s. It is like night and day.
Last 5 #6: Ryan Sims, Jonathan Sullivan, KWII, PacMan Jones, Vernon Davis
Last 5 #31: Robert THomas, Nnamdi Asomugha, Rashaun Woods, Mike Patterson, Kelly Jennings

Seems like #6 is a bad place to draft of late.



And we can still get a good young DLman at 31. Only we would have Briggs also.



They can have both easily. Especially with Arch and brunell coming off the cap. Signing Briggs doesn't mean Cooley walks(unless he's demanding 55-60 million).<<<

It absolutely means he walks. With the salary cap always going up we wil continue to be shocked at what non franchised free agents get on the open market. My problem is the Skins allow too many of our own drafted players to reach free agency. We can resign our own a year or two before they hit free agency for a relative bargain. With the cap space saved by employing this strategy it allows the team to be even more aggressive when a non compensatory free agent becomes available.

akhhorus
04-27-2007, 08:45 PM
<<<

It absolutely means he walks. With the salary cap always going up we wil continue to be shocked at what non franchised free agents get on the open market. My problem is the Skins allow too many of our own drafted players to reach free agency. We can resign our own a year or two before they hit free agency for a relative bargain. With the cap space saved by employing this strategy it allows the team to be even more aggressive when a non compensatory free agent becomes available.

Briggs, assuming he gets Adalius Thomas' deal, will get 35 million over 6 years. Dumping Arch saved 24-25 million, Brunell leaving after this season saves almost another 20 million. The cap will be going up nearly 7-10 million a year for 3-4 years. And this isn't counting if/when Griff, Springs, Lloyd and Washington retire or leave. Now basic math says that we can afford to give Cooley 40-45 million(which is reasonable) over 7 years. And thanks for not discussing the rest of that post.

BurgundyNGold
04-27-2007, 08:54 PM
Briggs, assuming he gets Adalius Thomas' deal, will get 35 million over 6 years. Dumping Arch saved 24-25 million, Brunell leaving after this season saves almost another 20 million. The cap will be going up nearly 7-10 million a year for 3-4 years. And this isn't counting if/when Griff, Springs, Lloyd and Washington retire or leave. Now basic math says that we can afford to give Cooley 40-45 million(which is reasonable) over 7 years. And thanks for not discussing the rest of that post.
The thing that nobody is accounting for is the unreasonable. We can try to sign Cooley all we want but he's GOING to test the FA market. There is NOTHING we can do about that. And if anybody offers him unreasonable loot as a FA, he's gone, just like anybody else would be.

The only chances of Cooley coming back to DC involve a) him taking slightly less to stay in DC, b) other teams not overpaying for what will probably be the top TE in FA after this season, or c) us tagging him. Folks had better pray for option C because I wouldn't expect A or B to happen.

akhhorus
04-27-2007, 08:56 PM
The thing that nobody is accounting for is the unreasonable. We can try to sign Cooley all we want but he's GOING to test the FA market. There is NOTHING we can do about that. And if anybody offers him unreasonable loot as a FA, he's gone, just like anybody else would be.

The only chances of Cooley coming back to DC involve a) him taking slightly less to stay in DC, b) other teams not overpaying for what will probably be the top TE in FA after this season, or c) us tagging him. Folks had better pray for option C because I wouldn't expect A or B to happen.

I'd offer him Jason Whitten' contract(7-45). Its fair to him and affordable to us. If he seriously wants 60+ million, he can get it elsewhere. Thats much more than Gonzo or Gates got, and they're much better TEs than Cooley is.

urobm
04-27-2007, 08:58 PM
You know, Im at work all day thinking about the draft and cant wait to get home and see the latest mock drafts and final thoughts. Wow what a suprise I got to see that the Briggs deal has resurfaced. I almost got sick to my stomach. I am hoping and praying that this doesnt happen. WE NEED A DL period. Bringing in Briggs does nothing to improve our front 4. We need to decipher between needs and wants. I dont understand you are in position to pick up any of the top 3 Dlineman in the draft and at the same time acquire an additional 1st day pick.

shally
04-27-2007, 08:58 PM
The thing that nobody is accounting for is the unreasonable. We can try to sign Cooley all we want but he's GOING to test the FA market. There is NOTHING we can do about that. And if anybody offers him unreasonable loot as a FA, he's gone, just like anybody else would be.

The only chances of Cooley coming back to DC involve a) him taking slightly less to stay in DC, b) other teams not overpaying for what will probably be the top TE in FA after this season, or c) us tagging him. Folks had better pray for option C because I wouldn't expect A or B to happen.

i fully expect the skins to NOT sign cooley and then tag him when he tests things

the figure for TE's may not be that huge.. or they can tag and negotiate with him for a long term deal afterwards

shally
04-27-2007, 09:02 PM
I'd offer him Jason Whitten' contract(7-45). Its fair to him and affordable to us. If he seriously wants 60+ million, he can get it elsewhere. Thats much more than Gonzo or Gates got, and they're much better TEs than Cooley is.

no accounting for what the market will do.. look what dockery got..

still, the market for TE's has yet to declare itself to be totally insane

and i do not think the skins made that big an effort to sign didier when he became free, so it may be that they are not going to overpay for a good tight end.. that was a long time ago, but we ended up letting asher, then alexander, then royal and rasby go.. we do not seem to make a huge effort to re sign tight ends.. different eras, i realize, but the net effect is the same

shally
04-27-2007, 09:03 PM
You know, Im at work all day thinking about the draft and cant wait to get home and see the latest mock drafts and final thoughts. Wow what a suprise I got to see that the Briggs deal has resurfaced. I almost got sick to my stomach. I am hoping and praying that this doesnt happen. WE NEED A DL period. Bringing in Briggs does nothing to improve our front 4. We need to decipher between needs and wants. I dont understand you are in position to pick up any of the top 3 Dlineman in the draft and at the same time acquire an additional 1st day pick.

from the way gibbs alludes to rookies not being able to crack the starting lineup you could assume the skins will make a play for a vet def lineman after or during the draft. nothing would surprise me

SkinsfaninNJ
04-27-2007, 09:17 PM
The thing that nobody is accounting for is the unreasonable. We can try to sign Cooley all we want but he's GOING to test the FA market. There is NOTHING we can do about that. And if anybody offers him unreasonable loot as a FA, he's gone, just like anybody else would be.

The only chances of Cooley coming back to DC involve a) him taking slightly less to stay in DC, b) other teams not overpaying for what will probably be the top TE in FA after this season, or c) us tagging him. Folks had better pray for option C because I wouldn't expect A or B to happen.
I will go on record now as saying Cooley will be another Samuels/Jansen. He will get a good contract with decent incentives and he will be here for most or all of his career. And he will get it signed before the end of next season.

May be optimistic on my part, but I have a feeling. But I do not have the same feeling about Taylor at this point.

BurgundyNGold
04-27-2007, 09:17 PM
I'd offer him Jason Whitten' contract(7-45). Its fair to him and affordable to us. If he seriously wants 60+ million, he can get it elsewhere. Thats much more than Gonzo or Gates got, and they're much better TEs than Cooley is.
Yeah, but they're locked up to contracts and he's not. Do you think Dockery is worth anything NEAR Hutchinson loot? It's not about what they're worth, it's what's somebody is willing to pay. And somebody will pay Cooley more than that.

BurgundyNGold
04-27-2007, 09:19 PM
I will go on record now as saying Cooley will be another Samuels/Jansen. He will get a good contract with decent incentives and he will be here for most or all of his career. And he will get it signed before the end of next season.

May be optimistic on my part, but I have a feeling. But I do not have the same feeling about Taylor at this point.
I hope you're right. I tend to think that we're going to tag him so that if he does leave, at least we get some compensation.

urobm
04-27-2007, 09:20 PM
from the way gibbs alludes to rookies not being able to crack the starting lineup you could assume the skins will make a play for a vet def lineman after or during the draft. nothing would surprise me


Well as much as I love Joe, I think he has to reevaluate everything, You have to build through the draft, you have to develop your talent. I mean signing FAs and at times trading for a player, can play dividends, and fill needs, but until you put your time and confidence in that draft you will continue to stay a step behind.

SkinsfaninNJ
04-27-2007, 09:20 PM
I have only been reading this site for a few years, but has there ever been a non-Redskin get more pages than Lance Briggs?

akhhorus
04-27-2007, 09:23 PM
Yeah, but they're locked up to contracts and he's not. Do you think Dockery is worth anything NEAR Hutchinson loot? It's not about what they're worth, it's what's somebody is willing to pay. And somebody will pay Cooley more than that.

No, but I think that contract was more the outlier than pattern. There were insane contracts handed out this offseason, but I have a feeling that next offseason won't see a repeat of that. If someone wants to pay Cooley 60-70 million, so be it. He really isn't worth that much. Much like Dockery wasn't worth the insanity he got.

BurgundyNGold
04-27-2007, 09:28 PM
No, but I think that contract was more the outlier than pattern. There were insane contracts handed out this offseason, but I have a feeling that next offseason won't see a repeat of that. If someone wants to pay Cooley 60-70 million, so be it. He really isn't worth that much. Much like Dockery wasn't worth the insanity he got.
I think there will be plenty of loot next year and maybe even after 2008. I say tag him and offer him an average of the top 5 or 10 at his position. If he won;t sign before becoming a FA, I say wait him out until 2008 when the cash dries up a bit to offer him the long term deal.

akhhorus
04-27-2007, 09:29 PM
I think there will be plenty of loot next year and maybe even after 2008. I say tag him and offer him an average of the top 5 or 10 at his position. Wait him out until 2008 when the cash dries up a bit to offer him the long term deal.

And thats what they'll do. The tag is fairly cheap for TEs.

skinsfan36
04-27-2007, 10:34 PM
i think that cooley will get about 35 million over 6 or 7 and jlc said in a chat that they expect to start contract talks in a month or 2(probably after june 1st)we will have enough to sign him with arch,brunell off the books

Skins7ny
04-27-2007, 11:11 PM
on warpathinsiders they say if this doesnt happen tommorow or byu tommorow dont be surprised if we give up a second next year for briggs(i agree). after think about this im ok with this trade i was mad originally because i want okoye or anderson or carriker but i believe a real good de will be available at 31 in anthony spencer so we would get a good de,briggs(pretty sweet deal). id like to get a 4th or 3rd out of them though since we have the leverage. now my case for spencer is that he was first in tackles for aloss last year in the big ten. this is a running conference for the exception of really ohio state. this guy is going to be a beast,but the thing is briggs has to sign his tender for this to happen and the draft is approaching fast.

What is the over/under for how many 2008 draft choices we still have left after this weekend? The number is currently 6.

Skins7ny
04-27-2007, 11:24 PM
And that was thanks to our great GM Chuckie Casserly. So much for a real GM fixing all the problems.

Akh, I agree that Casserly overpaid for Johnson. And, although you didn't say so, Johnson's neck/spine problems, which were common knowledge at the time, probably reduced his arm strength and effectiveness long-term. However, I think you are being unfair in blaming "Chuckie" (I thought that name was reserved for Gruden) for Johnson leaving. The blame on that lies squarely with Dan Snyder, who made it clear from the start that he hated Johnson and the trade that brought him here. Casserly was gone soon afterwards. Johnson, after leading the Skins to within a botched FG snap of the NFC Championship game, watched Snyder bring in Jeff George, his polar opposite in every way, and order Norv to play him. After that, there was no way Johnson was going to re-sign here, despite the fact he grew up a Skins fan in North Carolina. We know what happened next-George was cut after two games the next year and Johnson went on to win the Super Bowl with the Bucs.

His handling of the situation was one of the first signs that Snyder was going to be a meddlesome owner who thought he was qualified to make personnel decisions. There is little doubt that we would have been better off if he had kept his mouth shut and let Johnson continue to run the offense, despite the injuries he suffered that year.

redskin_rich
04-28-2007, 12:25 AM
Akh, I agree that Casserly overpaid for Johnson. And, although you didn't say so, Johnson's neck/spine problems, which were common knowledge at the time, probably reduced his arm strength and effectiveness long-term. However, I think you are being unfair in blaming "Chuckie" (I thought that name was reserved for Gruden) for Johnson leaving. The blame on that lies squarely with Dan Snyder, who made it clear from the start that he hated Johnson and the trade that brought him here. Casserly was gone soon afterwards. Johnson, after leading the Skins to within a botched FG snap of the NFC Championship game, watched Snyder bring in Jeff George, his polar opposite in every way, and order Norv to play him. After that, there was no way Johnson was going to re-sign here, despite the fact he grew up a Skins fan in North Carolina. We know what happened next-George was cut after two games the next year and Johnson went on to win the Super Bowl with the Bucs.

His handling of the situation was one of the first signs that Snyder was going to be a meddlesome owner who thought he was qualified to make personnel decisions. There is little doubt that we would have been better off if he had kept his mouth shut and let Johnson continue to run the offense, despite the injuries he suffered that year.While I agree with some of what you're saying -- namely, bringing in Jeff George (purely Snyder) -- I wasn't too heartbroken to see Brad go. I watched him lose many a game at FedEx, most notably, the game at home against the Giants in 2000. It was the turning point for both teams. We lost 9-7, Norv got fired and the Giants went to the Super Bowl.
And there was the hurt thumb that he hid from the staff in '99. Look at his numbers from game 10 on.

shally
04-28-2007, 01:50 AM
I think there will be plenty of loot next year and maybe even after 2008. I say tag him and offer him an average of the top 5 or 10 at his position. If he won;t sign before becoming a FA, I say wait him out until 2008 when the cash dries up a bit to offer him the long term deal.

as both you and akh say, that is exactly what i think they will do.. tag him and see what the market is.. they can always do a long term deal then.. or let him go and pocket the first rounder

shally
04-28-2007, 01:54 AM
While I agree with some of what you're saying -- namely, bringing in Jeff George (purely Snyder) -- I wasn't too heartbroken to see Brad go. I watched him lose many a game at FedEx, most notably, the game at home against the Giants in 2000. It was the turning point for both teams. We lost 9-7, Norv got fired and the Giants went to the Super Bowl.
And there was the hurt thumb that he hid from the staff in '99. Look at his numbers from game 10 on.

the problem is that after brad there really wasnt a plan B to go to when george flamed out.. tony banks ??? that nauseates me to even think about it..

brad is clearly a caretaker qb, but he was good enough to win with tampa and nobody can take that away from him.. plus, i think he is the ideal backup for dallas behind romo and it would not surprise me one bit to see him starting for the 'pukes late in the season

Hr fan
04-28-2007, 07:33 AM
Yep. We would still have Rocky and be getting Briggs.

We have a rep for getting enamored of a player and overpaying. We killed the deal supposedly (saying no way if Rocky is necessary - it's as offered only). The Bears, if they resurect this horse, want to deal, and feel we will cave on overpaying. Marshall is key because he called signals for 2 years, a very valuable backup with MW and RM comming off surgery. If the Bears reopened the talks they want to deal. Don't let them also dictate the terms. If they want to deal, they will want to deal after the draft also if nothing occurs during the draft to beat our offer.

Hr fan
04-28-2007, 07:39 AM
Maybe nothing. Rocky could move to MLB or SLB.

I think this is the exact plan. Unfortunately it makes sense.

Hr fan
04-28-2007, 07:46 AM
i think so..

still, it leaves the d line un-fixed and i wont feel comfortable about next season until it is..

i am beginning to think that maybe post draft the skins trade for an established d lineman

Such as Kris Jenkins. This would net us the DT we need and upgrade our LB corps. The outstanding deficiency is pass rush, and as good as these moves are for run and pass defense we still have 37 year old Daniels as our stud, and to paraphrase Ali Baba, Bledsoe isn't in the NFL any longer.

Skins7ny
04-28-2007, 07:56 AM
While I agree with some of what you're saying -- namely, bringing in Jeff George (purely Snyder) -- I wasn't too heartbroken to see Brad go. I watched him lose many a game at FedEx, most notably, the game at home against the Giants in 2000. It was the turning point for both teams. We lost 9-7, Norv got fired and the Giants went to the Super Bowl.
And there was the hurt thumb that he hid from the staff in '99. Look at his numbers from game 10 on.

Yeah, I agree with you, Johnson was injured and had a bad year. He bounced back pretty well the next year, as we all know. Snyder took an ascending playoff team, that took us years to develop, and blew it up with his meddling. He destroyed team chemistry, undermined his coache, blatantly favoring some players over others (see what effect that had on LaVar's career, for example) and got taken to the cleaners by overaged stars with huge egos like Bruce Smith and Deion (1 and done for $8M). He literally acted like a baby with a new toy. I am hoping that we see a new, more mature owner and FO from here on out, but all the Briggs/Rosnehaus stuff makes me wonder. I really don't want to hear the owner talking at a press conference about who he is drafting and who he has scouted. He is the f*** owner, he is not a professional scourt! Let the scouts do their job, let the GM (there's the rub) do their job, let the coaches do their job, sign the checks and hold them accountable. That is the Jack Kent Cooke model, and it worked very well, and still does throughout the league. Do you think Bob Kraft tells Scott Pioli and Bill Belichik whom to draft? By all means, sit in on the meetings, be in the war room, have fun with your toy, but don't act like you are a football man when you aren't!

akhhorus
04-28-2007, 07:58 AM
Yeah, I agree with you, Johnson was injured and had a bad year. He bounced back pretty well the next year, as we all know. Snyder took an ascending playoff team, that took us years to develop, and blew it up with his meddling. He destroyed team chemistry, undermined his coache, blatantly favoring some players over others (see what effect that had on LaVar's career, for example) and got taken to the cleaners by overaged stars with huge egos like Bruce Smith and Deion (1 and done for $8M). He literally acted like a baby with a new toy. I am hoping that we see a new, more mature owner and FO from here on out, but all the Briggs/Rosnehaus stuff makes me wonder. I really don't want to hear the owner talking at a press conference about who he is drafting and who he has scouted. He is the f*** owner, he is not a professional scourt! Let the scouts do their job, let the GM (there's the rub) do their job, let the coaches do their job, sign the checks and hold them accountable. That is the Jack Kent Cooke model, and it worked very well, and still does throughout the league. Do you think Bob Kraft tells Scott Pioli and Bill Belichik whom to draft? By all means, sit in on the meetings, be in the war room, have fun with your toy, but don't act like you are a football man when you aren't!

But Snyder gave up final say when he hired Gibbs. He's still involved, but Gibbs makes the final choice.

Axegrinder
04-28-2007, 07:59 AM
Brian Mitchell compared this to the Jermiah Trotter experience.He said that w/o a strong D-Line in front of Briggs,it would turn out the same.He said that the Skins should pass on Briggs and draft a pass rusher.I totally agree

Hr fan
04-28-2007, 08:07 AM
i think what John Clayton said is thattalks have broken off again. I agree, can't rule it totally out, but it looks like a very VERY low probability now

This is gamesmanship. For all we know the deal was never on. If Chi is going to move Briggs and if our offer is the best then it will happen. Otherwise it is just a more dense part of the pre-draft fog.

Hr fan
04-28-2007, 08:15 AM
i too doubt there will be much demand for that #6 pick. everyone in that area is trying to trade down. turning that pick into two defensive players makes real sense to me.

With so many questions about virtually every player it is easy to convince yourself that you have to get a specific player, like LL if you need a S. Teams fall in love with specific players. If there are enough questions about players expected to be available when you draft it is easy to draft up to get a specific player. An example is Anderson, the DE. He only produced for a year. This ignores that he was at the position for only 1.5 years, so how could he be expected to have a long resume. To one person this is a fault. However he was not moved to DE because his outstanding athletcism made him a candidate for multiple positions. To another person this is an asset.

Hr fan
04-28-2007, 08:21 AM
<<<

Yes, but last year we lost our third and fourth for Brandon Llyod. We gave up this years 2nd to move up for McIntosh. My point is that we always find a way to give up picks. Smart teams keep their picks and sign those players who cost no draft compensation. For the money Briggs wants we could have signed Adalius Thomas for no draft compensation. I can go on and on with this. We didn't just trade Champ Bailey for Portis- we traded a high 2nd rounder and Champ for Portis. Whatever the deal it always seems to work out in favor of the other team. We traded a 1st and 3rd for Laverneous Coles. 2 years later the Jets got Coles back. We traded a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd rounder for Brad Johnson and let him go 2 years later. This why we are always playing " whack a mole". Footbal is not basketball- one players impact is minimized by the fact that footbal is an injury prone game of 22 starters. This team needs a combination on quantity and quality- not just a handfull of superstars and a bunch of NFL castoffs. Look at the playoff teams and you'll find that they built through the draft and accesorized through free agency. Not the other way around. The insanity of the Redskins strategy is that it has been employed for quite a long time yet they keep expecting a different result. Stupid Stupid Stupid!

This is the FO's mode of operation said remarkably well. Good post, and welcome aboard!

akhhorus
04-28-2007, 08:31 AM
This is the FO's mode of operation said remarkably well. Good post, and welcome aboard!

Considering that one of the moves he complains about wasn't made by Snyder at all, and only 1 move he whines about happened under Gibbs; no, its not a good post about how the FO operates.

Hr fan
04-28-2007, 08:41 AM
Except that under Gibbs we had two years where we signed a lot of fas and 2 years where we haven't(05 and 07). So no, we haven't been employing the same strategy for 'a decade'. Marty and Casserly tried the draft centered strategy and failed miserably. Snyder with Spurrier tried the FA and RFA strategy and failed. Gibbs is having balance.

In defense of Marty, he got us out of the cap hell caused by Deion Sanders, Bruce Smith et al. He purged over aged underproducers, sifted through FAs since our draft chioces were slim, and got to 8-8 with a very strong second half of the season. Eerily like JG I. But the Snyder/Cerrato ego machine insisted that their results were better.

The owner is the one to set the tone of the organization. He did by insisting on a role for which he was totally unfit, but which was his perogative. He was ably assisted by Cerrato to the decline of the franchise.

Good organizations win, though the success can be personalized by individuals (Gibbs/Beathard for instance). Failure can also be characterized by individuals (Snyder/Cerrato). What counts is corporate culture, and this starts at the top. JKC got good people, pressed them on to extraordinary efforts, and reaped the rewards. DS relys on VC, who is joke around the league, and has set up an organization so disfunctional that JG felt a need to rescue the franchise for which he has so much feeling.

The rumor that a new personnel man known to JG is on the way from the Bears. This too will fail if Cerrato retains any position in the organization.

Skins7ny
04-28-2007, 08:48 AM
This is the FO's mode of operation said remarkably well. Good post, and welcome aboard!

I agree with this post as well.

Considering that one of the moves he complains about wasn't made by Snyder at all, and only 1 move he whines about happened under Gibbs; no, its not a good post about how the FO operates.

Snyder and Cerrato are the continuing thread throughout all the moves.
Which makes you wonder about...

But Snyder gave up final say when he hired Gibbs. He's still involved, but Gibbs makes the final choice.

It is an open question how much influence over moves Snyder maintains with Gibbs. I agree that he did cede final authority, but none of us really know. The bigger problem, IMO, is that Gibbs and Snyder actually share the same beliefs on acquiring players: get big-name splashy veterans, price be damned (both in terms of financial costs and acquisition costs) and totally devalue your draft choices. I think that Dan probably actually values the draft more than Gibbs does, but he values it for the show it provides and the other opportunities it provides to make a splash (Calvin Johnson, anyone?).

Things will not improve until Gibbs/Snyder start valuing their draft choices and develop more of their own players. If we haven't learned that lesson by now, there is little hope that we ever will. Keeping our 6 remaining 2008 draft choices will be a sign that we are (finally) moving in the right direction.
I say we take our medicine today, sit out rounds 2 through 4 if we cannot trade down in the first round, and then go into next year with a near-full complement of choices. I don't think that the draft pool is that great this year anyway.

Redskin4Life
04-28-2007, 09:12 AM
What is the over/under for how many 2008 draft choices we still have left after this weekend? The number is currently 6.
I got no problems with giving up a 2nd next year as long as we follow my dream draft below...

NCskinsfanatic
04-28-2007, 09:24 AM
Well guess we'll know soon enough, for some reason I still think Briggs will be a Redskin and to be honest I think alot of it has to do the Washington's hip and Rocky being a lil green.As long as we atleast get their 31st I'm cool with the #6 for Briggs. It should be easier to trade down from 31 if we are looking to acquire more picks and fill in our depth.

Hr fan
04-28-2007, 10:06 AM
Considering that one of the moves he complains about wasn't made by Snyder at all, and only 1 move he whines about happened under Gibbs; no, its not a good post about how the FO operates.

Please see post 140. Yes Snyder didn't make all the moves. Yes, Casserly proved with us and Houston means having a GM isn't a key in itself to success. He cut more subsequent probowlers than any GM in history (McCardell, Wycheck, and Schlereth to name a few). I think the point is that subsequent to JKC (and including John Kent Cooke) the organization lost impetus and leadership. This thrust the leadership roles on those incapable of fulfilling it, such as Casserly and now Snyder/Cerrato. Schottenheimer did a magnificent job in one year, getting the 'Skins out of cap hell and going 8-8 with castoffs and rejects (eerily like Gibbs first year in Gibbs I). This is a FO problem (which includes the owner), which, with the buzz about JG finally asserting himself as the last word and maybe hiring a personnel man make me hope the corporate culture is changing. The proof of the pudding will be Cerrato. If he is here next year nothing will change on a FO level, and Snyder, advised by Cerrato, will remain the final word on personnel, a function he is singularly inept at.

new guy
04-28-2007, 10:12 AM
No deal until the final count down. Trade down 12-14 + xtra 1st day pick Anderson/Branch. Cant get at least this. Hello Lance system probowler or not the guy has taklen fuel.

frankez99
04-28-2007, 10:19 AM
It's gonna happen....I can feel it.:banghead:

So get ready to hear this today:

"With the 31st pick in the NFL draft, the Washington Redskins select......"

And due to this lack of attention to a quality young DLman, we'll most likely hear next season:

"With the (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th) pick the Washington Redskins select......"

Hail to the Redskins......hail victory (not in the draft, though).

Hr fan
04-28-2007, 10:23 AM
This replies to no one, just offers a fact. I have argued that a bad corporate culture exists at Redskins park, and until it changes all the trades/choices will make little difference. The fact is this - Vince Lombardi was asked why he took the job as head coach of Green Bay, which was a perrenial door mat. He said that drafting as high as they had done for years meant the personnel were there. Ergo the leadership wasn't. I think he proved his point with players who, in the overwhelming majority (Starr, Taylor, Hornung, etc.), were there when he arrived.

Skins7ny
04-28-2007, 11:01 AM
Please see post 140. Yes Snyder didn't make all the moves. Yes, Casserly proved with us and Houston means having a GM isn't a key in itself to success. He cut more subsequent probowlers than any GM in history (McCardell, Wycheck, and Schlereth to name a few). I think the point is that subsequent to JKC (and including John Kent Cooke) the organization lost impetus and leadership. This thrust the leadership roles on those incapable of fulfilling it, such as Casserly and now Snyder/Cerrato. Schottenheimer did a magnificent job in one year, getting the 'Skins out of cap hell and going 8-8 with castoffs and rejects (eerily like Gibbs first year in Gibbs I). This is a FO problem (which includes the owner), which, with the buzz about JG finally asserting himself as the last word and maybe hiring a personnel man make me hope the corporate culture is changing. The proof of the pudding will be Cerrato. If he is here next year nothing will change on a FO level, and Snyder, advised by Cerrato, will remain the final word on personnel, a function he is singularly inept at.

Excellent posts, HR Fan!

Skins7ny
04-28-2007, 11:02 AM
LET'S START THE MADNESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:Partybig:

bgforever
04-28-2007, 11:05 AM
LET'S START THE MADNESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:Partybig:


Yeah Boyyyyy :flower1:

lorimike
04-28-2007, 11:12 AM
Considering that one of the moves he complains about wasn't made by Snyder at all, and only 1 move he whines about happened under Gibbs; no, its not a good post about how the FO operates.<<<

Akhhorus,

I have no problem with Dan Snyder. I think his heart is in the right place but we all have different views as to how our glory days were fullfilled. Take a look at the 81, 82, 83 draft you can see how the Redskins had some great drafts that help propell us to Wins and Superbowls over the following decade. Dan Snyder thinks those teams were build through free agency and traded picks which is why he continues with that Strategy. Truth of the matter is we are both right but the 1980's was a different era. With the salary cap the trick is to draft well and resign those players long before they test the open market - the cap space will be there if the afformentioned strategy is employed. When a marquee free agent become available then you sign him but only if there is no draft compensation is required. If I was GM- I would ban the trading of draft picks. I would resign my own good young players that I drafted long before they could test the open market( i.e. Antonia Pierce, Chris Cooley, Derrick Dockery) This is the only way a team can possible fill all the holes on a team with any semblance of Quality.

lorimike
04-28-2007, 11:22 AM
You know, Im at work all day thinking about the draft and cant wait to get home and see the latest mock drafts and final thoughts. Wow what a suprise I got to see that the Briggs deal has resurfaced. I almost got sick to my stomach. I am hoping and praying that this doesnt happen. WE NEED A DL period. Bringing in Briggs does nothing to improve our front 4. We need to decipher between needs and wants. I dont understand you are in position to pick up any of the top 3 Dlineman in the draft and at the same time acquire an additional 1st day pick.
<<<<

Well said!! I completely agree

NCskinsfanatic
04-28-2007, 11:26 AM
<<<<

Well said!! I completely agree
looks like thats what we're doing...

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

POSTED 10:41 a.m. EDT, April 28, 2007

'SKINS CHOOSING BETWEEN LANDRY, ANDERSON

A league source tells us that the Washington Redskins will draft either safety LaRon Landry or defensive end Jamaal Anderson with the No. 6 overall pick in the draft.

Per the source, the 'Skins actually have defensive tackle Amobi Okoye listed higher on their board, but they believe that they greater needs at safety and defensive end.

The Redskins are not expected to do a deal with the Bears for linebacker Lance Briggs, which would have moved the 'Skins to No. 31. However, even if a trade could be done for Briggs, it's our understanding that the Bears don't want the No. 6 overall pick because they believe they wouldn't be able to trade down out of it.

SpicyMcHaggis
04-28-2007, 11:27 AM
<<<<

Well said!! I completely agree
What's with the <<<<? (Just curious)

OCSkinzFan
04-28-2007, 12:27 PM
BRIGGS DEAL DEAD

shally
04-28-2007, 02:00 PM
BRIGGS DEAL DEAD

wait until after the draft to say that.. or until he is traded to someone else

James F. Quinn
04-28-2007, 03:05 PM
I will go on record now as saying Cooley will be another Samuels/Jansen. He will get a good contract with decent incentives and he will be here for most or all of his career. And he will get it signed before the end of next season.

May be optimistic on my part, but I have a feeling. But I do not have the same feeling about Taylor at this point.

Next season is THIS season WRT Cooley's contract. If they don't get him locked up before TC, he'd be a fool not to play it out and look to test the FA waters at the end of the year. If they franchise him for 2008, that's at least a $3.5M increase over the $.500M that he'll make this year.

He and his agent will look at the deals that UFA TEs make and will demand as much or more than the biggest one they see. If he Redskins don't agree, they can franchise him again in 2009. Some say that makes friction between the club and the player, but I have no way to know if that's true in Chris's case.

James F. Quinn
04-28-2007, 03:09 PM
as both you and akh say, that is exactly what i think they will do.. tag him and see what the market is.. they can always do a long term deal then.. or let him go and pocket the first rounder

...And use it to draft the best Safety available... :rolleyes:

OCSkinzFan
04-28-2007, 03:21 PM
wait until after the draft to say that.. or until he is traded to someone else
Because we will be trading our #6 for him:rolleyes:

lorimike
04-28-2007, 03:36 PM
I don't like the Skins pick because we need defensive lineman in the worst way. I wish we would have kept our 2nd rounder because we could have addressed the DE postion with Spencer from Purdue or Crowder from Texas. But with that said I am very glad we didn't do the deal for Briggs. At this point I don't know what Chicago will do with Lance. Maybe someone will give em a 1st next year for him but hopefully not the Skins. I think McIntosh has the potential to very good and I think Lemar Marshall is more suited for WLB.

lorimike
04-28-2007, 03:38 PM
What's with the <<<<? (Just curious)<<<<<<

They are Redskin arrows. If it bothers you I'll stop.

Regards:)

lakeskin
04-28-2007, 04:31 PM
It would be kind of funny if Branch ended up at 31. Lance Briggs and Alan Branch? lol. bah, irrelavant now i guess.

SpicyMcHaggis
04-28-2007, 04:32 PM
<<<<<<

They are Redskin arrows. If it bothers you I'll stop.

Regards:)
Oh ok..no, it doesn't bother me at all! I was really just curious because I had never seen it before..

NCskinsfanatic
04-28-2007, 05:34 PM
hey there's always next seasons 2nd ...:lol1: (ducks and covers)

shally
04-28-2007, 07:43 PM
hey there's always next seasons 2nd ...:lol1: (ducks and covers)

as of the midddle of round 2 briggs is still a bear.. we will see what they do to move him

Skins4life1
04-28-2007, 07:52 PM
Landry is very good pick. If you all remeber back in 2004, when we didn't have any true pass rusher, yet our defense was in the top ten.However, we had Ryan Clark relieve so much pressure of Taylor. Well, Landry is Ryan Clark on Drugs and with the development Golston and the emergance of Carter, this will be a better defense that it was back in 2004. Which isn't a bad thing.

And please don't touch next year drafts.

helimech24
04-28-2007, 10:58 PM
I am so happy this didn't happen

shally
04-28-2007, 10:59 PM
I am so happy this didn't happen

did chicago trade him somewhere else ?

helimech24
04-28-2007, 11:36 PM
Oh, I don't know, but the rumor was we were going to give our #1 for him...and we actually didn't pull the trigger. Even though I hate our pick, I would rather have a safety we don't need than 5 starting LBs on the team