Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[quote=mlmpetert;291811]this is absolutely ridiculous. I hate Danielle Snyder[/quote]


What he said. I wonder if there is anything Drew Rosenhaus could not sell the Danny. What the hell is going on in that relationship? Do they have some sort of weird bond fostered by the fact they are both under 5'2"?? Drew just walks into a bar and within a couple of minutes Snyder's given up the 6th overall pick. Why does that SOB make us the laughingstock of the league . . . HELL at least Al Davis won a couple of Super Bowls before he lost his mind! As long as DS is making boatloads of cash I guess he'll just keep pissing it away. Wish John Kent Cooke had won the ownership battle!!!!!

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;291827]I think it's because some people don't know how to do anything but complain. It's like the folks who keep bitching about how we never re-sign our own guys in spite of all the re-signings we've completed this offseason. That mentality will only change when the team starts winning, if even then.[/QUOTE]

In this case, I disagree 100%. You can't tell me that if we were to, right now, trade the #6 for the #31 overall pick and Lance Briggs that it would not be a dumb trade. The 6th pick was three weeks ago worth Dre Bly' a 1st, 2nd and 3rd round draft pick. Lance Briggs was a third round draft pick. I think peoples biggest gripe is that we should be drafting 2-3 starting calibur guys a year. I mean we draft guys well, we just dont have any picks. In addition, its highly likley that on April 28th, that #6 pick is going to get much better offers, especially if a few certain people fall too #6.

Furthermore....we just wasted two freaking second round picks on a linebacker at the same positoin 11 months ago, and we have a guy in Lamar Marshall, who has been a pretty solid starter for us for the last 3 years and excelled in 2005 and was one of the defenses best players. Unless were changing the entire defensive scheme to be a 3-4, why would we add someone else to that linebacking core?? It's just stupid.

Finally, we can only resign Ethan Albright and Ade Jimoh (not that I dislike the guys and Albright is probaboly the most under-rated player on the team), but we can only resign them so many times to make me forget about losing guys like Fred Smoot (1st time), Antonio Peirce, and Derrick Dockery or Chris Cooley if that dosent go down next year. I'm glad we re-upped Sellers/Thomas, but they still had time left on their deals too. Its our starters that people are upset about. We didnt re-sign any of them this year.

People arent just complaining for the sake of complaining. They are complaining because its deals like this that made us a dysfunctional franchise to begin with. Dont take my word for it, go re-listen to Clinton Portis on the John Thompson show after the season, the players dont like it either. I'm not saying you cant do a deal like this every now and then, but our front office does it just for the sake of doing it. Adding Lance Briggs to this football team and losing that #6 pick makes us a worse football team.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[QUOTE=SC Skins Fan;291842]What he said. I wonder if there is anything Drew Rosenhaus could not sell the Danny. What the hell is going on in that relationship? Do they have some sort of weird bond fostered by the fact they are both under 5'2"?? Drew just walks into a bar and within a couple of minutes Snyder's given up the 6th overall pick. Why does that SOB make us the laughingstock of the league . . . HELL at least Al Davis won a couple of Super Bowls before he lost his mind! As long as DS is making boatloads of cash I guess he'll just keep pissing it away. Wish John Kent Cooke had won the ownership battle!!!!![/QUOTE] Were would we be if John Kent Cook had kept the team? That be fun to go back and see? Is there a movie there?

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;291827]I think it's because some people don't know how to do anything but complain. It's like the folks who keep bitching about how we never re-sign our own guys in spite of all the re-signings we've completed this offseason. That mentality will only change when the team starts winning, if even then.[/QUOTE]

I tend to agree. But I am not a big complainer and I think this deal will end up stinking for us for almost every reason stated on this board. I am 100% opposed to it. I believe that some serious rationalization is going on around here right now.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[QUOTE=Gmanc711;291846]In this case, I disagree 100%. You can't tell me that if we were to, right now, trade the #6 for the #31 overall pick and Lance Briggs that it would not be a dumb trade. The 6th pick was three weeks ago worth Dre Bly' a 1st, 2nd and 3rd round draft pick. Lance Briggs was a third round draft pick. I think peoples biggest gripe is that we should be drafting 2-3 starting calibur guys a year. I mean we draft guys well, we just dont have any picks. In addition, its highly likley that on April 28th, that #6 pick is going to get much better offers, especially if a few certain people fall too #6.

Furthermore....we just wasted two freaking second round picks on a linebacker at the same positoin 11 months ago, and we have a guy in Lamar Marshall, who has been a pretty solid starter for us for the last 3 years and excelled in 2005 and was one of the defenses best players. Unless were changing the entire defensive scheme to be a 3-4, why would we add someone else to that linebacking core?? It's just stupid.

Finally, we can only resign Ethan Albright and Ade Jimoh (not that I dislike the guys and Albright is probaboly the most under-rated player on the team), but we can only resign them so many times to make me forget about losing guys like Fred Smoot (1st time), Antonio Peirce, and Derrick Dockery or Chris Cooley if that dosent go down next year. I'm glad we re-upped Sellers/Thomas, but they still had time left on their deals too. Its our starters that people are upset about. We didnt re-sign any of them this year.

People arent just complaining for the sake of complaining. They are complaining because its deals like this that made us a dysfunctional franchise to begin with. Dont take my word for it, go re-listen to Clinton Portis on the John Thompson show after the season, the players dont like it either. I'm not saying you cant do a deal like this every now and then, but our front office does it just for the sake of doing it. Adding Lance Briggs to this football team and losing that #6 pick makes us a worse football team.[/QUOTE]
Here here!

It's like this team revels in making "daring moves" and then sits back and enjoys the spoils of said moves while saying "I told you so" to everyone who bashed them. Except these moves almost never work out and we continue to stink it up. With the 6th pick we could concievably draft 3(maybe 4) quality players who could start for us over the next 5 years. This deal gives us one, dubiously good, LB and one pick with which to make an impact. The idea that Briggs is a surer thing is somewhat of a stretch. We're talking about a 3rd round draft pick who played in a great scheme with an immensely talented group of players around him. Now we're going to take him out said scheme and put him with a less talenetd group and pay him ridiculous money. I don't see how this plays out well for us really.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[QUOTE=ArtMonkDrillz;291841]So you would be happy with this deal and think it would make the team better?[/QUOTE]

Well as I've said [url=http://www.thewarpath.net/291585-post62.html]here[/url] and [url=http://www.thewarpath.net/291563-post50.html]here[/url] and probably other places my concern with the deal is a.) shouldn't we get more picks and b.) why did we trade up to get Rocky and then sign Fletch only to add another linebacker. Granted, we're talking Lance Briggs here but still

I don't have a problem with people opposing the trade. Like I said, I still lean against it. All I'm saying is, to Matty's question, I think a lot of people's reason for opposing the trade isn't "well what about Rocky" or "can we afford to pay Briggs, what does this mean for Coooley" or "is Briggs a system back" or anything like that, it's just "well, it's the Redskins so it must be a bad move."

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

there must have been a ZJ at the end of the night for this to go through

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[quote=Gmanc711;291846]In this case, I disagree 100%. You can't tell me that if we were to, right now, trade the #6 for the #31 overall pick and Lance Briggs that it would not be a dumb trade. The 6th pick was three weeks ago worth Dre Bly' a 1st, 2nd and 3rd round draft pick. Lance Briggs was a third round draft pick. I think peoples biggest gripe is that we should be drafting 2-3 starting calibur guys a year. I mean we draft guys well, we just dont have any picks. In addition, its highly likley that on April 28th, that #6 pick is going to get much better offers, especially if a few certain people fall too #6.

Furthermore....we just wasted two freaking second round picks on a linebacker at the same positoin 11 months ago, and we have a guy in Lamar Marshall, who has been a pretty solid starter for us for the last 3 years and excelled in 2005 and was one of the defenses best players. Unless were changing the entire defensive scheme to be a 3-4, why would we add someone else to that linebacking core?? It's just stupid.

Finally, we can only resign Ethan Albright and Ade Jimoh (not that I dislike the guys and Albright is probaboly the most under-rated player on the team), but we can only resign them so many times to make me forget about losing guys like Fred Smoot (1st time), Antonio Peirce, and Derrick Dockery or Chris Cooley if that dosent go down next year. I'm glad we re-upped Sellers/Thomas, but they still had time left on their deals too. Its our starters that people are upset about. We didnt re-sign any of them this year.

People arent just complaining for the sake of complaining. They are complaining because its deals like this that made us a dysfunctional franchise to begin with. Dont take my word for it, go re-listen to Clinton Portis on the John Thompson show after the season, the players dont like it either. I'm not saying you cant do a deal like this every now and then, but our front office does it just for the sake of doing it. Adding Lance Briggs to this football team and losing that #6 pick makes us a worse football team.[/quote]

Terrific post.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

The Redskins get unfairly criticized for making some moves (e.g., 13th for Coles, Coles for Moss, signing Griffin, etc), but this one is definately worthy of criticism. I think it's a debatable move, but no matter how I spin it, I personally think it's an awful move.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[quote=SmootSmack;291857]Well as I've said [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/291585-post62.html"]here[/URL] and [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/291563-post50.html"]here[/URL] and probably other places my concern with the deal is a.) shouldn't we get more picks and b.) why did we trade up to get Rocky and then sign Fletch only to add another linebacker. Granted, we're talking Lance Briggs here but still

I don't have a problem with people opposing the trade. Like I said, I still lean against it. All I'm saying is, to Matty's question, I think a lot of people's reason for opposing the trade isn't "well what about Rocky" or "can we afford to pay Briggs, what does this mean for Coooley" or "is Briggs a system back" or anything like that, [B]it's just "well, it's the Redskins so it must be a bad move."[/B][/quote]

I don't think so. I've seen tons of posts in this thread and in the 200+ post one stating why this is a bad deal. There's tons of real reasons and tons of substantiation behind all of them.

In this case, this is no knee-jerk reaction. People are mainly bothered by the fact that we have glaring needs at D line, and this trade severely compromises our ability to satisfy that need.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;291857]Well as I've said [url=http://www.thewarpath.net/291585-post62.html]here[/url] and [url=http://www.thewarpath.net/291563-post50.html]here[/url] and probably other places my concern with the deal is a.) shouldn't we get more picks and b.) why did we trade up to get Rocky and then sign Fletch only to add another linebacker. Granted, we're talking Lance Briggs here but still

I don't have a problem with people opposing the trade. Like I said, I still lean against it. All I'm saying is, to Matty's question, I think a lot of people's reason for opposing the trade isn't "well what about Rocky" or "can we afford to pay Briggs, what does this mean for Coooley" or "is Briggs a system back" or anything like that, it's just "well, it's the Redskins so it must be a bad move."[/QUOTE]Alright, I see what you're getting at. However, I after reading through the majority of the posts I think most people are pissed because of the reasons that you stated (Rocky, trading the 6th for more picks, money for the future, etc) and that this isn't one of those situations where people are bashing for the sake of bashing.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

This reminds me of Jeremiah Trotter back in the day.

I believe that as of this moment, Alan Branch is a more valuable player than Lance Briggs. However, we are willing to trade away alan branch and pay twice as much just cause Dan Snyder is bored. And don't give me this "Dan is successful all everything" crap. Six flags is falling off the map.

This is typical BS, not happy at all about this offer as I'm sure you can tell. All the other moves have been good this offseason, but this one takes the cake (if it is true)

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;291868]I don't think so. I've seen tons of posts in this thread and in the 200+ post one stating why this is a bad deal. There's tons of real reasons and tons of substantiation behind all of them.

In this case, this is no knee-jerk reaction. People are mainly bothered by the fact that we have glaring needs at D line, and this trade severely compromises our ability to satisfy that need.[/QUOTE]

Who said you could talk? Didn't The Ego ban you for 10 weeks? :) Seriously though, perhaps I should have replaced "a lot of people" with "there are people who"

Bottom line, if the trade goes down as speculated (#6 for Briggs and #31)what's the next step for you as a fan, and the Redskins as a team

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;291868]In this case, this is no knee-jerk reaction. People are mainly bothered by the fact that we have glaring needs at D line, and this trade severely compromises our ability to satisfy that need.[/QUOTE]Not to mention our secondary!
I was explaining this deal to a coworker this morning and as I was telling him some of the details (he's not a Skins fan, that idiot) I realized that the linebacking corps is arguably the strongest part of our defense right now. Last year we all would have been mad if we had gone out and traded a bunch of draft picks to get Will Shields with our Oline being as strong as it was; I see this as the defensive equivalent.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[quote=SmootSmack;291875]Who said you could talk? Didn't The Ego ban you for 10 weeks? :) Seriously though, perhaps I should have replaced "a lot of people" with "there are people who"

[B]Bottom line, if the trade goes down as speculated (#6 for Briggs and #31)what's the next step for you as a fan, and the Redskins as a team[/B][/quote]

To hope to be pleasantly surprised with the Defense after week 4.