The latest on Briggs: Bears want more

[redsk1]

Its frustrating that the skins even made this offer, which was reportedly made. I just can't see how we would give up so much to get McIntosh last year, only to basically give up on him. Come on skins, we have alot more pressing needs than LB???? It doesn't make sense.

[sportscurmudgeon]

On another thread, it was asserted that Danny Boy offered this trade at the owners meeting in the form we now see it.

ASSUME FOR A MOMENT THAT IS CORRECT !!!

Of course the Bears should ask for more. After all, if it went down the way it was asserted on that other thread, Danny Boy set the floor for the negotiations with his offer; there's no way the Skins can go back to any counter-offer with less than they offered in the first place - - unless Danny Boy wants to look like a horse's ass to his fellow owners and football afficionados. [Remenber, Danny NEVER likes to look like a horse's ass even though he does do that more than once in a while...]

So, the Bears will counter with some offer to try to get more and then the REAL acumen of the Skins' FO as negotiators will come to view. How do they respond? Do they pull their current offer off the table? Do they make it a "take-it-or-leave-it proposition"? If the Bears want Marshall, do they counter with Rocky - - or vice-versa?

The deal as it stands now would be a HUGE bargain for the Skins - - if they actually needed another linebacker which they do not. For the value of a mid-first round pick, they would be getting a Pro Bowl quality linebacker. That's a good deal.

So, when the Bears ask for more - - as they damned well should - - how much more should the Skins be willing to fork over to get a Pro Bowl linebacker when that is NOT their current most pressing need by a longshot?

Suppose the Bears ask for next year's first round pick too?

How about next year's second round pick? :confused:

How about Rocky AND Golston?

How about Randle-El? :thumb:

Take a deep breath and try to think about all this without emotion because that's how the Bears and hopefully the Skins' FO folks are going to do this...

My hope is that they make the current offer a "take-it-or-leave-it" proposition with about a 72-hour deadline. Then we can move on with or without Lance Briggs in town.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

On another thread, it was asserted that Danny Boy offered this trade at the owners meeting in the form we now see it.

ASSUME FOR A MOMENT THAT IS CORRECT !!!

Of course the Bears should ask for more. After all, if it went down the way it was asserted on that other thread, Danny Boy set the floor for the negotiations with his offer; there's no way the Skins can go back to any counter-offer with less than they offered in the first place - - unless Danny Boy wants to look like a horse's ass to his fellow owners and football afficionados. [Remenber, Danny NEVER likes to look like a horse's ass even though he does do that more than once in a while...]

So, the Bears will counter with some offer to try to get more and then the REAL acumen of the Skins' FO as negotiators will come to view. How do they respond? Do they pull their current offer off the table? Do they make it a "take-it-or-leave-it proposition"? If the Bears want Marshall, do they counter with Rocky - - or vice-versa?

The deal as it stands now would be a HUGE bargain for the Skins - - if they actually needed another linebacker which they do not. For the value of a mid-first round pick, they would be getting a Pro Bowl quality linebacker. That's a good deal.

So, when the Bears ask for more - - as they damned well should - - how much more should the Skins be willing to fork over to get a Pro Bowl linebacker when that is NOT their current most pressing need by a longshot?

Suppose the Bears ask for next year's first round pick too?

How about next year's second round pick? :confused:

How about Rocky AND Golston?

How about Randle-El? :thumb:

Take a deep breath and try to think about all this without emotion because that's how the Bears and hopefully the Skins' FO folks are going to do this...

My hope is that they make the current offer a "take-it-or-leave-it" proposition with about a 72-hour deadline. Then we can move on with or without Lance Briggs in town.

I agree with ya SC! I just really hope we don't do something stupid by offering up any players along with the draft pick.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Why are so many people ready to give up on Marshall? I would say that he has more value than Rocky or Golston at this point.

I would give them Montgomery and that is it. We are doing them a favor by taking this guy off their hands.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Why are so many people ready to give up on Marshall? I would say that he has more value than Rocky or Golston at this point.

I would give them Montgomery and that is it. We are doing them a favor by taking this guy off their hands.

Rocky's value is high primarily because of what was given up to get him in the first place.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Why are so many people ready to give up on Marshall? I would say that he has more value than Rocky or Golston at this point.

I would give them Montgomery and that is it. We are doing them a favor by taking this guy off their hands.

I don't think you can justify trading for a pro bowl linebacker as "doing them a favor."

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't think you can justify trading for a pro bowl linebacker as "doing them a favor."

true but i think we should scrap the briggs deal
give rocky a chance at starting and keep golston in the rotation with griffin and sign ian scott and then either draft gaines adams or laron landry

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

true but i think we should scrap the briggs deal
give rocky a chance at starting and keep golston in the rotation with griffin and sign ian scott and then either draft gaines adams or laron landry

I agree.

Competition is a good thing. We seem to be so afraid of it.

Let Rocky and Marshall fight it out. You save so much money over Briggs in doing so.

I'm shocked that Ian Scott is still unsigned. He'd be a fine addition to any team, and we certainly have the need at the position, but I'd pass on him. Let's save our money. Inevitably, there will be a better DT on the open market next year. Lets take advantage of the fact that Salave'a still has a year left on his deal and milk him for all he's worth. If he just can't go anymore, play the rookie I'm assuming we are going to take.

We very well could make a big signing on the DL next offseason, but certainly we will be reevalutating our needs between now and then.

Laron Landry only makes sense if we can get a trade down AND have decided to give up on Sean Taylor. If we are committed to Taylor, Landry makes little sense.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I'm shocked that Ian Scott is still unsigned. He'd be a fine addition to any team, and we certainly have the need at the position, but I'd pass on him. Inevitably, there will be a better DT on the open market next year.

Like who? That's one position I've found teams like to have stick around unless coaches and general managers truly think they're done -- like Warren Sapp. Even still, a "better" defensive linemen who is on the free agent market will command top dollar, so much so that we may not be in running depending on how our cap situation shakes out.

As far as Ian Scott goes, I've never heard of him anywhere but here at The Warpath. Don't you think if he was that good he'd have been snatched up by now? Otherwise, the longer he sits there with no interest, if the Redskins do sign him, it would look more like another Brandon Noble-type has-been acquisition that ultimately won't help us.

That the Redskins have up till now shown no interest doesn't speak well -- either he's that bad, or institutionally speaking, the front office simply refuses to address their needs at that position. (Assuming of course, they even recognize there's a problem with the front four). There's a part of me that thinks this front office believes they've already solved the problem on the D-line with last year's draft selections of Kedric Golston and Anthony Montgomery.

Let's hope that's not the case.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I agree.

Competition is a good thing. We seem to be so afraid of it.

Let Rocky and Marshall fight it out. You save so much money over Briggs in doing so.

I'm shocked that Ian Scott is still unsigned. He'd be a fine addition to any team, and we certainly have the need at the position, but I'd pass on him. Let's save our money. Inevitably, there will be a better DT on the open market next year. Lets take advantage of the fact that Salave'a still has a year left on his deal and milk him for all he's worth. If he just can't go anymore, play the rookie I'm assuming we are going to take.

We very well could make a big signing on the DL next offseason, but certainly we will be reevalutating our needs between now and then.

Laron Landry only makes sense if we can get a trade down AND have decided to give up on Sean Taylor. If we are committed to Taylor, Landry makes little sense.

if we trade down and the big 3 defensive lineman are gone why not pair him with taylor man this draft would be so much easier if we had a 2nd rd pick way to go gibbs pissing it away like that

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't think you can justify trading for a pro bowl linebacker as "doing them a favor."

Letting them move up to the 6th pick and taking a problem off their hands is doing them a favor in my book. I don't see anyone else beating down their door to take him off their hands. If they don't trade him they are looking at a locker room disaster next season.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Letting them move up to the 6th pick and taking a problem off their hands is doing them a favor in my book. I don't see anyone else beating down their door to take him off their hands. If they don't trade him they are looking at a locker room disaster next season.

Somehow, I don't think a group of 52 paid professionals will allow one really good player to ruin everything. Quite the contrary. They are much better off with him.

We are much better off without him.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

i am still torn on who to draft adams,branch,okoye,or anderson

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Letting them move up to the 6th pick and taking a problem off their hands is doing them a favor in my book. I don't see anyone else beating down their door to take him off their hands. If they don't trade him they are looking at a locker room disaster next season.

Sadly I agree with Grim. We are doing them a favor by taking away their problem.

Beside that we are screwing ourselves up by paying so much for Briggs and screwing over Rocky who we have invested quite a bit in.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Sadly I agree with Grim. We are doing them a favor by taking away their problem.

Beside that we are screwing ourselves up by paying so much for Briggs and screwing over Rocky who we have invested quite a bit in.

It's really a bad trade for both teams. The Bears don't have a use for the No. 6 pick. They don't have a Briggs replacement on the roster.

So Angelo won't be able to accept the 31 and Briggs for the 6th. He's too smart, too patient, and it hurts his defense far too much. It makes sense that he's doing his due dilligence and requesting a trade that benefits his team. This trade just won't be possible without at least one side getting royally screwed.

Look, I don't know where the Lance Briggs is a headcase faction arose from, but nothing could be further from the truth. Contract negotiations are tricky, and he's simply saying what his agent tells him to to get him the most money.

The proposed deal by us hurts all parties involved except Rosenhaus. Fitting.