Imagination thread and trade poll.

[Henry]

The only way this makes any sense to me is if we get an elite pass-rusher of a LB. Even then I'd rather have a lineman, or a bunch of picks, or pick a guy with the #6, or just about anything, than someone else's LB.

And pro-bowls with another team mean less for us than pro-bowls with our own team. Someday it would be really cool if our front office got that.

[Art]

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.

Great example of a WONDERFULLY successful move by the Redskins like signing Coles. Coles got hurt, something unexpected, and hurt in a way that changed him as a player, but, a man with 1,200 yards followed by 90 catches isn't a guy you failed on. Worked out brilliantly. Coles appeared to be on his way to superstardom before the toe and merely was a very good player after that. Kudos for getting him. More kudos for realizing he'd changed and getting Moss.

[Aston]

I voted no because in a Gregg Williams defense, the duties of a linebacker are based on keys, reads, and intelligence, not sheer athletic ability (read: Lavar). In this system, the linebackers need to simply follow their cues and fly to the ball and I strongly feel, especially with the addition of Fletcher, that we have plenty of guys capable of doing this.

What keeps the LBs from doing their job (aside from egos and free lancing) are offensive lineman who aren't double teaming a dominant DT or DE. Last year we could have started Ray Lewis, Brian Urlacher, and Shawn Merriman and still probably would have finished in the bottom half of the league in rushing defense.

I have no illusions, and I am fully aware we didn't tackle particularly well at any position, linebacker especially. The position needed some attention and I think Fletcher was a perfect fit. He'll make sure everyone understands their role from sideline to sideline. All we're missing is a dominant front 4.

So no, keep your "great linebacker". We need a great line.

[drowland]

Great example of a WONDERFULLY successful move by the Redskins like signing Coles. Coles got hurt, something unexpected, and hurt in a way that changed him as a player, but, a man with 1,200 yards followed by 90 catches isn't a guy you failed on. Worked out brilliantly. Coles appeared to be on his way to superstardom before the toe and merely was a very good player after that. Kudos for getting him. More kudos for realizing he'd changed and getting Moss.

Yeah, then they ate the $9 mil cap hit to make the trade for Moss and let AP and Smoot walk right out the door.

[Skin Patrol]

Great example of a WONDERFULLY successful move by the Redskins like signing Coles. Coles got hurt, something unexpected, and hurt in a way that changed him as a player, but, a man with 1,200 yards followed by 90 catches isn't a guy you failed on. Worked out brilliantly. Coles appeared to be on his way to superstardom before the toe and merely was a very good player after that. Kudos for getting him. More kudos for realizing he'd changed and getting Moss.

While I think Coles in 2003 was very good, I'd hardly call it an outstanding year. He finished with 6 TDs and was 32nd in Defense-Adjusted Points Above Replacement per FootballOutsiders. I certainly wouldn't call his 2004 a successful year, as his miserable 10.6 YPC and one touchdown reception is fairly telling. 73rd ranked Receiver on DPAR.

Enormous credit for the team moving on Moss, though. I think we can both agree that getting Santana Moss was an excellent move by this Front Office. If we could string together a few more excellent moves such as that, I think we've got a real shot at a winning season in the future.

EDIT: And, as someone else pointed out, didn't Coles cost us 9+M against the '05 cap in dead space? Wouldn't that have been nearly 10% of our total cap space that year?

[thinker]

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.

Implicit though not stated in my thinking is that I'd prefer that we trade the #6 pick in some other - better way. Maybe the question should be would you rather have this trade or the previously discussed trade with the Broncos for Bly, their (earlier) 1st, 2nd, and our old 3rd? Another way to see one's true beliefs would be to ask the question an even different way: Would you rather pick at #6 OR do the Briggs trade - if you had to choose between the two? To me the Denver option seems the most advantageous for us, the Briggs trade second, and picking at #6 last. My hope is to get as many quality players at positions of need as is possible for our #6 pick. So the Denver type of deal could yield 4, the Briggs deal could yield 2 and the best we could do at #6 is get one player.

So to fully answer your question - I'd trade for the 31st and a surefire lb instead of picking at #6, but I'd rather do a different trade altogether.

[MRMADD]

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.

See, this is totally delusional. You started with an entrenched belief -- that Gibbs is in charge and Snyder is just signing the checks -- and no evidence to the contrary is admitted into your worldview. The media reports in this instance are the exact opposite of what you just wrote: they report that Snyder is off making deals without Gibbs. Then, and only after Snyder is so content with the deal that he happily chats with the media about it, does he send his boy down to find Gibbs.

You have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE in this case that Gibbs said to do anything. You just want to believe it is so. I've asked you, again and again, to provide any evidence, but you can't. Because it doesn't exist. Gibbs is only referenced once in that article, and it's clear that he's being informed after the fact.

So, again, SHOW US where it is "spelled out precisely" that Gibbs is the decisionmaker. And, beyond that, will you finally admit that this episode reveals that Snyder is intimately involved in football decision-making (something you have denied for years)? So even if you cling to the belief that Gibbs is the final authority, will you admit that Snyder is not just sitting back signing checks?

I don't think you can. Which is sad.

[CrypticVillain]

Briggs is a good linebacker, and I think he can excel in a Greg Williams D. But the key to this whole trade thing is who do we draft at the #31 pick. If a dude like Jarvis Moss or Anthony Spencer falls to 32 then I am all for it.

[Hail2theRedskins]

trade for briggs and the 31st and then trade the 31st to the colts for Feeney. That would be a dream trade.

[deejaydana]

I think we've given this ENTIRELY too much time to merit a mention, actually. This whole thing started, from what I've read and gathered, simply from Rosenhaus shooting his mouth off. Let it end, it won't happen (I pray)...