How the Lance Briggs deal started.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

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.

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

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.

Terrific post.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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.

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.

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

I guess Joe was into the deal. Although it did start last night in a bar. I'm guessing deals get done like this sometimes. I just don't understand why we are making his offer?

If it happens here one of Joe Gibbs first few lines at the press conference... " I really like to say when you have a chance to add a player of his claiber you do it."

I mean come on we don't need him right now there are other issues that they can address with this pick.

[mlmpetert]

this is absolutely ridiculous. I hate Danielle Snyder

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

this is absolutely ridiculous. I hate Danielle Snyder

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!!!!!

[RedskinPete]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

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!!!!!

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?

[MTK]

Normally I hate to cite PFT, but this actually makes sense with a nice dig on Pasta Belly:

BRIGGS-TO-'SKINS MAKES NO SENSE

Apart from the fact that Bears linebacker Lance Briggs became a star in a pure Tampa 2 scheme that the Redskins don't run, there's another reason why it makes no sense, in our view, for the 'Skins to add Briggs to the team.

With two big-money free agent linebackers -- Marcus Washington and London Fletcher-Baker -- already in the starting lineup, the 'Skins wouldn't be getting the best return on their investment in Washington, Fletcher-Baker, and Briggs.

Why? Because a defense has three linebackers on the field roughly half of the time.

In the nickel and dime defenses, linebackers are replaced by defensive backs. Teams use the nickel whenever the opponent brings in a third receiver. Typically, that happens in second and long or third and more than three or four yards.

At a time when the 'Skins are still thought to be interested in adding Dre' Bly to a corps of cornerbacks that includes Carlos Rogers and Fred Smoot, it's simply not a good investment of cap dollars to write a big bonus check to Briggs, unless the team is thinking about parting ways with Washington and his base salary of $4 million in 2007.

Meanwhile, ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli is once again creating the impression that he broke the story of a possible trade of Briggs to the 'Skins, even though Jay Glazer of FOXSports.com and Adam Schefter of NFL Network had the story well in advance.

(Free advice to Len: With the departure of Michael Irvin and the "reassignment" of Joe Theismann, the folks in Bristol are demonstrating a willingness to heed and to respond to accurate and reasonable external criticism of their employees.)

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Normally I hate to cite PFT, but this actually makes sense with a nice dig on Pasta Belly:

BRIGGS-TO-'SKINS MAKES NO SENSE

Apart from the fact that Bears linebacker Lance Briggs became a star in a pure Tampa 2 scheme that the Redskins don't run, there's another reason why it makes no sense, in our view, for the 'Skins to add Briggs to the team.

With two big-money free agent linebackers -- Marcus Washington and London Fletcher-Baker -- already in the starting lineup, the 'Skins wouldn't be getting the best return on their investment in Washington, Fletcher-Baker, and Briggs.

Why? Because a defense has three linebackers on the field roughly half of the time.

In the nickel and dime defenses, linebackers are replaced by defensive backs. Teams use the nickel whenever the opponent brings in a third receiver. Typically, that happens in second and long or third and more than three or four yards.

At a time when the 'Skins are still thought to be interested in adding Dre' Bly to a corps of cornerbacks that includes Carlos Rogers and Fred Smoot, it's simply not a good investment of cap dollars to write a big bonus check to Briggs, unless the team is thinking about parting ways with Washington and his base salary of $4 million in 2007.

Meanwhile, ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli is once again creating the impression that he broke the story of a possible trade of Briggs to the 'Skins, even though Jay Glazer of FOXSports.com and Adam Schefter of NFL Network had the story well in advance.

(Free advice to Len: With the departure of Michael Irvin and the "reassignment" of Joe Theismann, the folks in Bristol are demonstrating a willingness to heed and to respond to accurate and reasonable external criticism of their employees.)

LOL, at least they took a shot at the fat ass.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Why? Because a defense has three linebackers on the field roughly half of the time.

In the nickel and dime defenses, linebackers are replaced by defensive backs. Teams use the nickel whenever the opponent brings in a third receiver. Typically, that happens in second and long or third and more than three or four yards.

This one has me scratching my head -- in a nickel formation, doesn't the middle linebacker typically head for the sideline, leaving in the two presumably speedier outside linebackers? In this situation, I could see Briggs and Washington in on these types of plays.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

This one has me scratching my head -- in a nickel formation, doesn't the middle linebacker typically head for the sideline, leaving in the two presumably speedier outside linebackers? In this situation, I could see Briggs and Washington in on these types of plays.

I think for most teams. Actually I think most teams just keep their two best cover LBs in regardless of inside or outside.

[AlvinWalton'sNeckBrace]

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

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

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.

[The Zimmermans]

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)

[wushawn]

So Lets See, Dan Was Drunk For This Deal Right? So Dude Must Of Been Craked Out When The Did The Aa Deal!!!! Speaking Of Aa, If They Make This Deal Im Gonna Sign That Fool Up!!!