NFL Network: Bears' Briggs, 31st Pick for Skins' 6th Pick?

Man please, this is the same sh*t we were talking about last year.
In fact, every year. I'm weary with this team bringing in the 'missing piece.'

Same damn discussion, different dress.

You may have been talking like that about AA not me.

Briggs is the real deal.

# 6 pick knows our system and has instant chemistry? What's the answer.

BeemNSeven you have to remember that Joe Gibbs never controlled the defensive side of the football. So now that he is old he has forgotten all about those great Dlines of the 80's and how much they won him SBs and not his great offense of smashing you in the mouth all day, then when you least expect it drop a bomb on you.

I'm scared because I'm about to argue fervently against The Ego. But here goes nothing....

The "10" in Schneed10 stands for the number of weeks The Ego is about to ban you for!

When did LB become the skins need? We need DL & OG. The skins would be trading 1000 points according to the chart in dropping to 31...that is the equivilent of a mid 1st round pick. Then you have to give him a record contract to make him happy. If the Redskins #1 need was LB this trade would make sense...as it is now it's assinine.

The "10" in Schneed10 stands for the number of weeks The Ego is about to ban you for!

LOL. Or will he go with 72 weeks, as in Mattyk72?

.

This trade does not fit our needs, it doesn't solve our problems, and it perpetuates the players' discontent with our front office's willingness to pay outside talent rather than pay to keep their own. We need to trade the 6th pick for more picks, not Lance Briggs and a pick that can't solve our biggest need: DT.

I would have to disagree with on making the players in our locker room discontent with our FO. This move would not really be stepping on anyones toes or paying someone new instead of paying one of our own guys. We paid our own guys this year and didn't pay the right ones. As for not addressing our biggest need I agree with you.

This also kills any deal that would bring in Dre Bly, thus leaving us with an older and more fragile srpings to deal with next year.

bad move... and I don't like him. We don't need some dude who whines like a baby when he doesn't get what he wants.. NO!

With any deal you make, whether for players or in business, you have to look at the opportunity cost, or said differently, what opportunity we're giving up to make this deal.

To me, we currently have the opportunity to either:
1) Select Amobi Okoye at 6th overall and get the beast DT that we need eat up blocks, allowing our LBs to flow to the ball, and allowing our DEs more space to rush the passer.
2) Trade #6 for multiple picks, such as a high 1st (still allowing us to get an impact DL player) and a 2nd. Which essentially means we'd be giving up a chance to draft a 2nd rounder who could play G or S for us. There is evidence that Denver is willing to make a deal. And if Adrian Peterson falls to us, there's a real possibility we could end up with a massive package being proposed to us.

In this deal, we get Briggs. But we give up ANY possibility at getting a huge offer for #6 should Quinn or Peterson drop to us. We give up the ability to fix our horrible DT spot opposite Griffin (please, let's dismiss the notion that Golston will ever be effective stopping the run at 290 pounds). We also give up more cap space because Briggs will be more expensive than the #6 pick. And we give up on the opportunity to let Rocky McIntosh develop into a serious player, because we'll have 3 LBs in front of him, plus Marshall vying for time as well.

Just look at the cost-benefit picture here. It doesn't add up.

The "10" in Schneed10 stands for the number of weeks The Ego is about to ban you for!

Glad I didn't post it then.

If true, we would be getting bent over.

But we like getting bent over.