Imagination thread and trade poll.

[Bossman_SKins]

the thing about briggs is that he's not a certainty in our system. much like aa. how much of it was the system and urlacher. and put into account all the money we would have to sign him to. the reason he wants to get out of chicago is b/c of the whole money issue. so i think we need to show restraint and just trade down and acquire more picks

[ThomasRoane]

Wait a year. If Briggs is a free agent and Rocky has proven to be a bust, sign the guy.

If the Bears make a long-term deal with him or trade him to another team, so be it.

Let's show a little patience for once.

:applause: Memo to Dan: Fire Vinny and hire Hooper plz!

[Art]

On second thought, the one thing that would change the equation for me is if the Skins needs changed. If, for example, we know that Marcus Washington isn't coming back from hip surgery, then we suddenly have the worst linebacking corps in football. Not just NFL football, either. Then the 'need' criteria climbs and you start to take this trade more seriously. I'd still lean on the Bears to offer more, and I'd still wait until draft day, but it gets more interesting.

But right now? No way.

Washington has had multiple surgeries this offseason. I suspect he's fine, but, maybe he's not.

[Art]

I really want this team to built thorugh the draft, I think either getting a big time prospect at 6, or building depth through trading down would be better than getting another big name veteran. I'm happy with our LB's being Washington, Fletcher and Marshall/Rocky.

Good news, Grimm. Briggs was drafted, has played four years, made two Pro Bowl teams, a third as an alternate and was an All Pro. That's the kind of draft pick you dream about. Signing him would be the same. Of course, I consider myself skeptical on his ability .

[Sekhmet187]

Briggs is easily worth the #6 pick in the draft, plus the Redskins would still be able to draft someone in the late 1st round.

And thats only if the Bears don't throw in another draft pick, which may or may not happen, depending on how badly the Bears want something in return for Briggs and how willing the Redskins are to wait.

[SkinsWizCubsDukes]

Briggs is as good as his resume. He is one of the best LBs in the NFL. However, we just have enough LBs to get the job done. We need an impact player at d-line.

That said, throw in a second rounder and the deal is done!

[Art]

Briggs is easily worth the #6 pick in the draft, plus the Redskins would still be able to draft someone in the late 1st round.

And thats only if the Bears don't throw in another draft pick, which may or may not happen, depending on how badly the Bears want something in return for Briggs and how willing the Redskins are to wait.

Whether Briggs is worth the No. 6 pick or not is a good question. NO DOUBT a linebacker who's an All Pro and multiple Pro Bowler, who is just 26 would be worth that pick IF you knew he was actually that great a player. I think the people in this thread are being rather silly because in their heart of hearts every no in this thread knows they'd answer yes if a substitution of Merriman of another love affair player was substituted.

[thinker]

Art,

This is a really interesting question when juxtaposed with your other thread about whether a rookie dlineman will ever see the field this year. He might not see the field this year but he would next year (if we made a good pick). So by that logic if we stay as we are on the dline - then we go to next year and the same argument will be true. At that rate we'll never get a young stud dlineman.

A second point is that we aren't really stacked at lb because we only have three with any significant amount of playing time - Rocky is unproven and Khary Campbell is old as well as coming off an injury and has generally only played ST and goal line packages. Obviously Washington had serious surgery. So we do need more talent and depth at lb. But I can't say that I'd want ANY other star lb to come in. Our defense is dependent on the line at least preventing blockers from getting into the secondary so the lb's can make plays. Our line couldn't do that well last year and Lemar, for example, with his bad shoulder, was simply not strong enough to shed OG's, TE's, and FB's to get to the play. A great lineman can disrupt the whole blocking scheme of the offense (particularly a DT). Getting a "great OLB" (and I agree with you that if Briggs is "great" it's probably to do with him being a great fit for their system and the other players they have) doesn't help as much because teams can run plays to the other side or simply always account for the lb with a TE or lineman who are able to release and get to him because our line play has been so weak.

If we had all or our picks this wouldn't be as critical of a decision because then we'd be looking at getting a "good" player and having a late 1st, early 2nd, early 3rd, and early 4th to get a young lineman (Offensive and defensive, a young lb, another te, and possibly another safety or cb). But this #6 is our only bullet, we have too many needs to waste it on a player who would seem to clearly not be the last piece of the puzzle to get us to the SB. Using Merriman and Ware in the equation isn't really appropriate because it's not clear at all how a 3-4 lb translates into our very different scheme.

Gibbs' football was always that games are won in the trenches - I just don't see how we can really win with Griffin (good when healthy), Carter (perhaps turning the corner to being more dominant), and then a bunch of journeymen Wynn, Daniels, Evans, Montgomery, Boschetti, Salave'a, and Golston (still has potential upside).

[ThomasRoane]

Good news, Grimm. Briggs was drafted, has played four years, made two Pro Bowl teams, a third as an alternate and was an All Pro. That's the kind of draft pick you dream about. Signing him would be the same. Of course, I consider myself skeptical on his ability .

I'm certainly not wedded to the draft. I've defended FA here many times. But our track record has been more miss than hit. Just tired of seeing FA's come here and fleece us for $ then jet out of here. Started with the evil one himself, primetime.

I just want to see us making smart investments that will help us for years to come. Sure, the 6th pick is risk. So is Briggs. I just think we have a lot more leverage than the Bears. So we should really hold out for a better deal than they're offering.

[Art]

Thinker, I've said I'm for picking a defensive lineman, especially a tackle. If we were to trade for a legitimate top linebacker though, AND have a first-round pick to also sign a defensive lineman, how exactly would that be bad? We have a greater chance of missing on No. 31 than No. 6, but, we also should get a good player.

[Sekhmet187]

I think a player like Anthony Spencer would still be there at #31 and would be a great fit to pick up.

[Om]

On second thought, the one thing that would change the equation for me is if the Skins needs changed. If, for example, we know that Marcus Washington isn't coming back from hip surgery, then we suddenly have the worst linebacking corps in football. Not just NFL football, either. Then the 'need' criteria climbs and you start to take this trade more seriously. I'd still lean on the Bears to offer more, and I'd still wait until draft day, but it gets more interesting.

But right now? No way.

Can someone feel my forehead and see if I have a fever?

I agree with MADD.

[Rocky21]

I see the Screw You Art sentiment of the board is picking up steam.

[Skin Patrol]

I think the LB unit can survive without Washington, given Marshall or else McIntosh could pick up that side, though we'd be terrifyingly weak in depth.

If fans should view this trade as evidence that the team knows something about Marcus Washington that we don't, then we all might as well prepare ourselves for another bad year defensively.

I'd like to know how a (at least) 7 year, 33M deal impacts our ability to sign Chris Cooley in the near future without having to cut players we all like on this team.

[Sekhmet187]

Does anyone even know how bad the injury to Washington was? I never even heard much about it and suddenly I hear that he won't be back until at best week 1.

If so, how can people possibly claim the LB core is actually set? Its far from set, especially when you have a player in Rocky who apparently was so shaky in his rookie campaign, that he couldn't unseat Holdman.

I think Rocky will be a great player, but I think it might take too long and Marshall isn't starter material. I think they can still use Rocky to back up Marus (Or replace him if Washington can't come back like his old self, or if he needs more time to come back).

[Sekhmet187]

I think the LB unit can survive without Washington, given Marshall or else McIntosh could pick up that side, though we'd be terrifyingly weak in depth.

If fans should view this trade as evidence that the team knows something about Marcus Washington that we don't, then we all might as well prepare ourselves for another bad year defensively.

I'd like to know how a (at least) 7 year, 33M deal impacts our ability to sign Chris Cooley in the near future without having to cut players we all like on this team.

Whats funny, is that the #6 pick in the draft this year would likely command a contract equal to that anyway. Especially a "stud" DE, since DE's get big paydays. And thats if the HUGE FA spending spree hasn't drove the prices up.

The #6 pick might end up getting a 5 year 30M type deal this year. Don't hold me to these figures, I could be completely wrong, but each year the draft salaries go up, and top ten picks are A LOT of money nowadays so you better be damn sure of who you want.

the #31 pick would be a lot cheaper but could still be equal in talent.

[Art]

I see the Screw You Art sentiment of the board is picking up steam.

It always done when people are faced with a rational viewpoint and are forced to face their idiocy. Lashing out is natural.

[MRMADD]

It always done when people are faced with a rational viewpoint and are forced to face their idiocy. Lashing out is natural.

What is your "rational viewpoint," anyway? That anyone who correctly deduces that the Skins greatest need is not linebacker is a drooling moron? That anyone who reads the media reports and concludes that Snyder is intimately involved in the football affairs of this team is a fool? That anyone who thinks trading the #6 pick for a linebacker and a glorified second-round pick is unfair compensation must be a mental midget?

The irrational part of your argument is insisting that Snyder is just sitting back and writing checks while Joe drives the boat. That argument is dead and buried. You're just spitting into the wind now.

[MRMADD]

Can someone feel my forehead and see if I have a fever?

I agree with MADD.

It's Mr Madd to you, damnit. There, feel better?

[drowland]

Whats funny, is that the #6 pick in the draft this year would likely command a contract equal to that anyway. Especially a "stud" DE, since DE's get big paydays. And thats if the HUGE FA spending spree hasn't drove the prices up.

The #6 pick might end up getting a 5 year 30M type deal this year. Don't hold me to these figures, I could be completely wrong, but each year the draft salaries go up, and top ten picks are A LOT of money nowadays so you better be damn sure of who you want.

the #31 pick would be a lot cheaper but could still be equal in talent.

The Skins used this rationale when they signed Coles as a RFA and sent I believe the 13th overall pick to the Jets. They said the money they paid Coles was about what they would of paid the player taken at that pick anyway. I guess it's reasonable, but we've seen how the whole "proven player" thing has worked out for us in the past.

[Stormy]

It always done when people are faced with a rational viewpoint and are forced to face their idiocy. Lashing out is natural.

You often help frame a dialogue within rational context. However, this isn't one of the stronger examples, in my opinion. It seems like the two alternatives afforded, are far too constrained to offer any conclusions to be drawn regarding those who favor, or oppose, such a deal. This isn't exclusively an issue of "no LB under any circumstances" vs. Briggs the individual. Substituting a different LB, with a different skill set, might make the deal more palatable for many, but that doesn't exclude the fact that addressing another area of need could legitimately take priority. People who are opposed (or in favor) of adding another WLB, have viewpoints which are likely much more complex than this oversimplification. :2cents:

[Art]

What is your "rational viewpoint," anyway? That anyone who correctly deduces that the Skins greatest need is not linebacker is a drooling moron? That anyone who reads the media reports and concludes that Snyder is intimately involved in the football affairs of this team is a fool? That anyone who thinks trading the #6 pick for a linebacker and a glorified second-round pick is unfair compensation must be a mental midget?

The irrational part of your argument is insisting that Snyder is just sitting back and writing checks while Joe drives the boat. That argument is dead and buried. You're just spitting into the wind now.

No, I've made no comment to people who don't feel we have any need at linebacker. I think we do, but can understand those who think we don't. I don't think we have a big need, but one is there. Indeed, upon reading reports that Gibbs has to decide if he'd be interested in making a trade for Briggs to scream, "DAMN YOU DAN SNYDER. WHAT ARE YOU DOING?" would qualify as one of those irrational things you, in particular do.

Your third point is more apt though.

Anyone who thinks it's a bad deal to acquire a young, multiple Pro Bowl, one time All Pro linebacker for, as you've shown, what amounts to the No. 16 pick in the draft, is, absolutely a mental midget. You may not wish to do it for other reasons, based on need, or your belief the player isn't that good, but, if you simply judge the trade on the merits of the player and the cost, it's an exceptionally fine value. Failing to tip your cap to the accuracy of that is simply goofy.

Madd, you really are starting to worry me. Reports in this instance prove, beyond any doubt or contrary statement that Gibbs is the decision maker. It's spelled out precisely, and mirrors everything we've already had proven for us over the years. Snyder has a role, to sign the checks and try to get the people the decision maker asks him to get. If Gibbs says to do it, we know it was Gibbs who said to do it. Remember, all reports uniformly state Gibbs was the one who needed to decide this. So, the wind is neither stiff, nor there at all.

[Skin Patrol]

Whats funny, is that the #6 pick in the draft this year would likely command a contract equal to that anyway. Especially a "stud" DE, since DE's get big paydays. And thats if the HUGE FA spending spree hasn't drove the prices up.

The #6 pick might end up getting a 5 year 30M type deal this year. Don't hold me to these figures, I could be completely wrong, but each year the draft salaries go up, and top ten picks are A LOT of money nowadays so you better be damn sure of who you want.

the #31 pick would be a lot cheaper but could still be equal in talent.

Sean Taylor, picked at #5, got a 7 year 17M deal. That was in 2004 prior to a large inflation of the Salary Cap, and Safeties get paid a bit less than DEs, but I still don't know if Anderson or Adams at #6 commands a 33M contract.

The comparison is moot if you consider the #6 as a valuable pick to trade down with.

[Art]

You often help frame a dialogue within rational context. However, this isn't one of the stronger examples, in my opinion. It seems like the two alternatives afforded, are far too constrained to offer any conclusions to be drawn regarding those who favor, or oppose, such a deal. This isn't exclusively an issue of "no LB under any circumstances" vs. Briggs the individual. Substituting a different LB, with a different skill set, might make the deal more palatable for many, but that doesn't exclude the fact that addressing another area of need could legitimately take priority. People who are opposed (or in favor) of adding another WLB, have viewpoints which are likely much more complex than this oversimplification. :2cents:

The exercise to pick another player YOU envision to fit better than Briggs is to remove your personal taste for a player and to simply evaluate the trade as the team might be. That is, if THEY view Briggs as a top player, they will want to do a trade like this. So would you if you viewed the player involved as tops. The point is while I personally don't like Briggs, that's not a reason to think there's no merit to the trade. The logic is simple and sound. Find a Top 5 player at his position. Is he worth the No. 16 pick of the draft in value. Yes or no. Everyone knows that's a yes.

So, the thinking is right.

The player may not be, but that's an individual assessment as to whether we LIKE the deal, not whether the deal is thoughtfully considered.

[Sekhmet187]

The Skins used this rationale when they signed Coles as a RFA and sent I believe the 13th overall pick to the Jets. They said the money they paid Coles was about what they would of paid the player taken at that pick anyway. I guess it's reasonable, but we've seen how the whole "proven player" thing has worked out for us in the past.

Well thats just bad scouting jobs. Besides, they haven't really gone after an "athelete" like Briggs in the past. Even if Briggs isn't a monster LB, he is still young at 26, can still improve as he learns the game, and has physical skills that most LBs don't have. I don't really see this as having even a possibility of being like the Archuleta deal.

He may not play like a pro bowler or top 5 LB every season or even at all, but I'm pretty positive he'd still be better than any LB the Redskins would have on the roster.