Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

warriorzpath · 04-02-2007, 02:03 PM

I think what the redskins initially offered was more than enough and maybe made sense in a way. They gain a proven player at an area that they seem to feel was a weakness last year by moving down from the top to the bottom of the draft. What the Bears get is something positive for something that is negatively affecting their team.

If the redskins have to give up another player (with the players mentioned in the article) or draft pick, it wouldn't benefit the redskins at all. The whole point of the trade would be - to help strengthen an area of weakness. The players that were listed in the scenario are at positions of perceived weakness for the redskins: linebacker and defensive tackle. Addition-by-subtraction is not the case in this situation.

04-02-2007, 02:03 PM	#13
warriorzpath Registered User Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,880	Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more I think what the redskins initially offered was more than enough and maybe made sense in a way. They gain a proven player at an area that they seem to feel was a weakness last year by moving down from the top to the bottom of the draft. What the Bears get is something positive for something that is negatively affecting their team. If the redskins have to give up another player (with the players mentioned in the article) or draft pick, it wouldn't benefit the redskins at all. The whole point of the trade would be - to help strengthen an area of weakness. The players that were listed in the scenario are at positions of perceived weakness for the redskins: linebacker and defensive tackle. Addition-by-subtraction is not the case in this situation.