ESPN Article on Briggs..."a strong likelyhood" according to Rosenhaus

[0mega]

Having amazing linebackers is fine...but linebackers are only as good as the dline allows them to be. If we continue having a sub par line, our defense will continue to be subpar. As exciting as this would be, I really see no problem with letting Rocky and Marshall fight it out for that spot in training camp and pick a space filling tackle next to Griffin. Having 2 outstanding tackles would make our mediocre d ends acceptable.

Word.

D line = priority #1

[luvsmesumme]

Please say it ain't so... Another 1st rounder down the toilet... IMPEACH THE DANNY!!!!

[ashsra]

I really don't understand this move at all. If Snyder has to make a big splash to satisfy his ego I'd much rather him move up to #1 pick and take CJ rather than this trade. We've been in desperate need for a great young defensive lineman for so long, and now it looks like it won't happen again. Linebackers can't do anything if the lineman are getting knocked back into them, and Briggs had Tommie Harris in front of him in Chicago. Why have they given up on Rocky already? Briggs may end up being a great player and I really hope he is, but the great teams know how to prioritize and you can't do anything in a 4-3 without a good DL.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

We believe everything.

Truer words were never spoken lol...

It's appalling how even the most ludicrious, unfounded rumors about what the Skins are supposed to be doing are latched onto as carved-in-stone truth by a too-large segment of fans on this site...

[JoeGibbsThickandthin]

Truer words were never spoken lol...

It's appalling how even the most ludicrious, unfounded rumors about what the Skins are supposed to be doing are latched onto as carved-in-stone truth by a too-large segment of fans on this site...

Its lies We would of not have signed Fletcher if this would happen. They would of went after Clements instead of Fletcher and Smoot.

They have not even scouted linebackers in the draft.

It is not a need postition. Infact it is probaly the strongest on the team now. Marshall was a peice of crap middle linebacker. But he has proven he is a great depth player.

Rocky will start along with Fletcher baker and Washington.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Samuels, Dock, Betts, and Mr. Crutches were a combination of luck and no brainer talent evaluation.

"Luck"?...Please. I get the feeling that if Snyder had picked Cooley, that would have been chalked up to "luck" as well lol. Conversely, if Gibbs had picked Dockery and Betts, it would have been seen as a sign that he and not Snyder is determining who gets drafted. I'm not saying Snyder is the second coming of Bethard, but blowing off the successes in drafts before Gibbs as nothing more than luck is more a result of pre-formed bias than logical analysis.

[SkinsFTW]

Stop saying dont do the trade, the trade is a very good one. Its Gibb's last year, let him get who he wants.

Giving the Bears the #6 pick for a player that will not play in Chicago again and is a FA after 2007 is a good deal? That would almost be like trading them the #6 for their #31 straight up. I could see Briggs being worth them moving up 5 spots or so but not all the way to #6 when they already know they might not get anything from him if they don't swing something before the season starts. He's promised to sit out and not sign the 1 year deal.

[scruffylookin]

The trade is lies. It is not possible. They have Rocky, Washington, Fletcher, Marshall

Unless Washington has some serious injury and is going to retire the trade does not make sense.

They were not even trying to scout linbackers with the 6th pick. They did not bring 1 linebacker in for a workout.

It was all defensive linemen and they went to GT pro day for CJ.

I'm with you that I hope it's all a smokescreen to create pressure on the Bears by Briggs' camp, however it's not necessarily the case.

It could be that the Redskins have not been interested in getting another linebacker until the Briggs situation came up. Rosenhaus contacts them and gauges their interest in his client. The Skins all of a sudden do some research on him and now are hot and heavy for him.

Also, they likely would still select a dlineman with the 31st pick so it makes sense that they'd still be looking at all prospects even if they trade down.

Anyway, why can't we just wait until draft day if we're so hellbent to move from 6? It's when a team sees somebody they really really want sitting there that we can finally get the better end of these deals and not before.

[D-Day]

I'm with you that I hope it's all a smokescreen to create pressure on the Bears by Briggs' camp, however it's not necessarily the case.

It could be that the Redskins have not been interested in getting another linebacker until the Briggs situation came up. Rosenhaus contacts them and gauges their interest in his client. The Skins all of a sudden do some research on him and now are hot and heavy for him.

Also, they likely would still select a dlineman with the 31st pick so it makes sense that they'd still be looking at all prospects even if they trade down.

Anyway, why can't we just wait until draft day if we're so hellbent to move from 6? It's when a team sees somebody they really really want sitting there that we can finally get the better end of these deals and not before.

***Speculation***

As I read this thread, It surprised me that no one brought this up till the end. Nobody on this board knows the extent of Washingtons injury. We could be very well looking at a LB core of Marshall, fletcher, and Rocky with evans as the backup. As further evidence of this, Washington is at a decent age and is prime (contract wise) for a restructure which has not been done yet.

He will cost us 2 mil to cut right now and he will save us 2 mil this year if he retires or is cut after June 1st.

With this trade we have the chance to replace him with a pro bowler and still address the Dline in the draft with the 31st pick.

Tell me if this is acceptable to you (this is a scenario I could see)

Trade for Briggs

31st - DE from Georgia -Johnson I believe his name is

Trade next years 1st for a low second - Tank Johnson or a SS maybe nelson.

I would be pleased with this, other then Washingtons injury being worse then thought I can't think of a reason we would do this other then trading Briggs for another late first and a 4th - 7th pick. Hello Giants.

BTW to all the Snyder bashers read this from the Fox article. Still amazes me people think Snyder does all the picking and trades.

Snyder and football operations man Vinny Cerato left to find head coach Joe Gibbs regarding the deal.

Joe has to sign off on it people.

[SkinsFTW]

Dude, Briggs is going to want so much money there is no way he is worth it with our sorry DL in front of him.

It's like having 3 of the highest paid receivers in the league with Brunell throwing them the ball. Hmmm, we had that last year. Maybe this trade is going to happen.

[mdrun]

The big issue is; what d-lineman will be available at the 31st pick. This is a very deep draft for DE and DT. There are five or so guys at the top, but no "standout" among them. Some say Adams is too small, Anderson not proven enough, Branch too lazy. If there is going to be a lineman available at 31 that the coaching staff has targeted and likes, then I wouldn't object to this trade (wouldn't neccessarily be a huge proponent either). I think that to make this deal more in our favor, we need to get another pick. I think that a 2nd rounder is probably higher than the Bears would be willing to give up, but a 3rd would be more reasonable.

[D-Day]

The big issue is; what d-lineman will be available at the 31st pick. This is a very deep draft for DE and DT. There are five or so guys at the top, but no "standout" among them. Some say Adams is too small, Anderson not proven enough, Branch too lazy. If there is going to be a lineman available at 31 that the coaching staff has targeted and likes, then I wouldn't object to this trade (wouldn't neccessarily be a huge proponent either). I think that to make this deal more in our favor, we need to get another pick. I think that a 2nd rounder is probably higher than the Bears would be willing to give up, but a 3rd would be more reasonable.

I think there 3rd is def doable, they have two seconds remember. Also there are plenty of good DL in this draft. We can address them.

[GrimReefa]

I'm asking - did any of the people here who are saying our LB corps is "fine" happen to catch any of the games last season? Ok, so Holdman is getting the boot, and Marshall is moving out of the Mike, but wasn't it pretty obvious that he has lost a step? And, by the way, if we go into next season starting Marshall - Fletcher - Washington, that will mean our starting LBs will be 30, 31, and 32 by mid-season. How much longer do you think those guys are staying around, and staying productive? Briggs isn't just a move for this season - he will be the anchor of the LB corps for years to come, after all three of these guys are retired.

Honestly, we're not losing any net picks or even trading out of the first round! And any player we did get with the 6 pick, be it Adams or Anderson or Branch, isn't starting next season; Briggs will be. And at 31 there will still be solid DLinemen available.

Just because the team has been burned in the past making acquisitions, doesn't mean that every time we have an opportunity to make an upgrade we should immediately spurn it because of the past. It's one thing to learn from your mistakes, it's another to be paralyzed by them. Look at the Baltimore Orioles.

[HoyaSkins28]

this trade would be fine if we could get their 2nd or 3rd rounder also

[GrimReefa]

Some quotes from the Ravens board:

I hate to be negative, but we've earned our reputation around the league.

Oh my God, Ravens fans are hating on the Redskins? What's the world coming to? If we can't even trust Ravens fans to laud our team, who will be heaping insults on us next? Cowboy fans? Eagles fans? Len Pasquerelli?

Honestly, I want to know what these Ravens fans were saying last season when the situation was reversed and we were in the playoffs and they were trying to pick up the pieces. If I were a Baltimore fan I'd be a lot less worried about what the Redskins were doing and a lot more worried about why we couldn't hold onto a fan favorite OLB in his prime when we had a gazillion dollars invested in an aging MLB who can't stay healthy and whose best season is 7 years in the rearview mirror.

[Veretax]

so lets assume this trade is a done deal additional picks aside, for a moment. (Maybe denver gets involved in this 3 way deal.... Briggs to denver to get our #1 pick (bears get denvers #1, and we get Bears #1, Denvers #3? and Bly)?

Okay speculation aside

Lets assume we DO sign Lance Briggs. Does that mean one of our LB Corp could get traded away or cut, and if so who would you trade? Would you trade Rocky for Briggs?

Now here's a thought, could Snyder want to sign briggs only to trade him or one of our LBs to say Baltimore for one of their 4th Compensatory's and maybe a 2nd, 3rd, or both 4th Compensatory and a 5th.

[JimmiJo]

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

From PFT.com

POSTED 5:58 p.m. EDT; LAST UPDATED 6:25 a.m. EDT, March 27, 2007

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.)

[GrimReefa]

so lets assume this trade is a done deal additional picks aside, for a moment. (Maybe denver gets involved in this 3 way deal.... Briggs to denver to get our #1 pick (bears get denvers #1, and we get Bears #1, Denvers #3? and Bly)?

Okay speculation aside

Lets assume we DO sign Lance Briggs. Does that mean one of our LB Corp could get traded away or cut, and if so who would you trade? Would you trade Rocky for Briggs?

Rocky's not going anywhere. Like I said earlier - age is a serious issue with our LBs. McIntosh is going to be on this team for a long time, and he'll certainly be getting a lot of PT this season regardless of the make-up of the starters. And I don't think Marshall, who like Rocky can back-up all three positions, would be cut or given away, either (although if they could get a decent pick for him, by all means). It'll be a back-up who will likely get the axe, maybe "Anthony Trucks", whatever that is.

[TaylorPickSix]

Unless Snyder and Williams are trying to beef up our run defense by acknowledging we have no defensive line aside from griffin and carter, this trade still isn't making much sense to me. I need more picks than just #31.

[Veretax]

I would hope not.

Here's a thought. Could they be maneuvering to maybe sign then trade brigs to Detroit or Tampa to move up? And if they did that would that make it more likely we go after CJ? Or would it be a smoke screen to get more picks (say denver's alottment that's come up in the bly trade) and still come out on top?

[Jesus, Mary & Joe Gibbs]

The Redskins are the dumbest ORGANIZATION EVER if they do this trade...

They could sit back, wait until draft day, a guy might slide that a team wants, trade down a few slots, obtain a few later draft picks and STILL get an interior defensive lineman like Alan Branch and still be great defensively...

Instead they want to jump the gun a whole MONTH before the draft and trade down, not a few, but 25 spots down and give up the #6 pick to get another LB Lance Briggs when the Redskins need defensive help up front more than anything. Either a DE or DT is the biggest need on this team. I can't believe this might happen.

[[[ghost]]]

Thats not fair. the one big name guy we DON'T want ends up potentially coming here. Everybody else here whose a big name came here with high expectatiosn (Moss, Portis, Cambell, Taylor, etc.)

That said, if they do their first, and that second rounder that used to be ours, I would have a hard time saying no.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

From a value standpoint, this is NOT about Briggs for #6. We would also get the #31 pick. So if you subtract the value of that pick from the value of our pick, the difference is equivalent to the 16th pick in the 1st round.

So does Lance Briggs=16th pick overall in the first round?

Projected players to go in the middle of the first round:

Leon Hall, Ted Ginn Jr, Adam Carriker, Jon Beason

So let's say our FO thinks Briggs > any of those players

So we get Briggs and some guy at the end of the 1st round. Players projected to be around at that time in areas of need:

Anthony Spencer, Justin Harrell, Charles Johnson, Brandon Merriweather, Tim Crowder.

I still think we're better off moving no more than a couple spots and grabbing Amobi Okoye and a 3rd.

[Veretax]

No way does this happen unless the pick count traded to us goes up. I'd even be willing to trade the low pick we got for arch back for one of their seconds and a third/fourth.

[stwasm]

This will be long, since I just got done banging my head against the keyboard. I don't think the front office gets it!

Listen dude. You better wake up, Snyder has the cash to get these kind of players, they didnt come cheap. We've been able to sign huge deals and get away with it for the past couple of years. I know.. we havent gone to the superbowl in a while. But like most people you dont understand how hard it is to get to the superbowl.

Rosenhaus and the redskins are smart they both are at the top of their business fields. Redkins most valuble franchise in football, Rosenhaus the best agent in football.

They know that briggs wants out and costing us only a 6th pick in a weak draft? Yea i would do that.

And I guess making the Redskins the "most valuable franchise in football" has led to a Super Bowl dynasty in Washington, eh?

Or more like 84 months lol...

And thank GOD he did bring in Gibbs, you're right...

However, I also credit Snyder with:

- Firing Casserly

- Firing Norv

- Bringing in Samuels, Dockery, Betts and Arrington (regardless of how we all feel about him now, he was easily the fan favorite for 4 years, and rightly so)

- Turning the franchise into THE most profitable in the NFL, which leads to Gibbs being able to bring in the Portises, Mosses and the rest

See above about the Redskins being "THE most profitable in the NFL." Meantime, Snyder later called Casserly and said he should have fired Norv instead of him. At this point, I'd settle for Casserly instead of the comedy team of Snyder and Cerrato! :doh:

No, I think that would be a bad trade for us. Good for the bears, but bad for the skins. We could trade down off the #6 pick and get a mid first-round and a second and third round pick. Even if Briggs is really good, that won't make-up for the big hole in the interior of the D-line. We need a space hogging DT and a cover corner more than a weak-side LB.

Swapping first-round picks isn't enough here. As it's been pointed out by other posters, you might make a good argument for this deal if the Bears also threw in a second- or third-rounder. What good is a strong linebacking corps when the defensive line gets pushed back on the run and generates no pass rush?

I agree 100% we are a joke and every year it gets worst.If we sign Briggs say good bye to Cooley.I mean we are about 5 million under right now why not give Cooley the contract he deserves.No we just give all our money to other players.Theres no such thing is giving our own players money.Its always about the big named players.

Another reason this trade would be bad is that, if something happens to one of the 'backers or if Marcus Washington doesn't recover sufficiently from his surgery, we have no depth. That's what the draft is for. To find potential starters, but also build depth with young, hungry players who will do whatever it takes to get out on the field and show what they can do. This front office continues to be "star-struck" and ignores one of the basics of building a team.

I agree, throw in their #2 pick and I'm on. Otherwise this is not a very good deal.

Whether we need another LB or not (which we don't), that is a very high price for a player who already went on the record who would rather sit on the bench than play for the Bears.

This locker room doesn't need another player with an attitude. When we stumble out of the game, losing four of our first five games, Briggs will come out, saying, "I didn't sign on for this!"

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

From PFT.com

POSTED 5:58 p.m. EDT; LAST UPDATED 6:25 a.m. EDT, March 27, 2007

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.)

It seems like the folks at PFT know more about defensive systems and making personnel fit into those systems than our joke of a front office does. Why do they constantly try to fit square pegs into round holes? Did they learn anything from the Archuleta fiasco? :doh: