LOOPSKIN28 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 terpfan/sekhmet187. Thanks for the info. I didn't realize it was over the franchise tag. The Redskins have a habit of signing players to big up-front money deals and having them rework the contract later in the options. Not that that is the same as franchizing a player, but I would imagine Briggs might eventually harbor the same resentment toward the Skins if we sign him now and ask to rework the deal in 2009 when his base salary would $10M or so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
project myu Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Personally, I think that trading our #1 for their #1 plus Briggs is a fair deal. I just question if that's what our team needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 I agree with Skin_Patrol on the character issues. I realize that players hate the franchise tag, but the way he handled it was a bit telling. I'm also wondering how he is going to help us with our horrible pass rush. He is a 4-3 OLB not 3-4 and his stats show that he wasn't used that way much in Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bantu Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 This is not good at all, unless we are able to get atleast a 4th rounder as well. Future first day picks in '08 will do as well. We will be getting hosed on this one if we pull the trigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Day Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 I would tend to agree. If you don't have a man crush on Branch, CJ, Adams or Okoye you realize Washington gets a proven player at a position that isn't a strength on defense. They get younger, so it builds the defense for the future. Meaning you'd have Taylor, Rogers, Carter, McIntosh, Briggs, and Smoot who are all pretty young with at least 4-5 seasons left. Then you can select at #31, a great potential player at DE or DT. Or even trade down again and pick up maybe a 3rd or 4th, to get a DE and DT plus a S or OG. It makes a lot of sense, however, I think Washington should try and get another 4th or 5th along with Briggs and the 1st. Either way, good deal IMO. I love you man, seriously I do. This is not a domesday trade as everyone is putting it. We still stay in the first round and remember this is a very deep draft on the DL. Plus if we are so inclined we can trade next years #1 for another early second. Welcome Grubbs to fix the OL, Merriweather or nelson at SS, Johnson, Tyler or any # of good DL players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Closer to Draft Day = More Desperation on Chicago's PartMeaning we get more. If our FO does not see that WE hold all the cards on this one and that our #6 will do nothing but go up in value between now and Draft day than our FO is about as dumb as just about everyone on this board says they are. And I might start thinking that too. If we have to have him, I say wait until draft day, trade down from #6 and pick up a 2nd/3rd rounder and move down to about #10-#12. Then offer that pick for the #31 and Briggs. That would be the smart way to do it. you're right, we hold all the cards and we don't have to ante up just yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Day Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Not good enough. They want that #6 pick and have a player who won't show up.I want their 3rd rounder also. I think most fans would agree with you, I would do the deal but not yet, let Chicago sweeten the pot a bit with their 3rd or hopefully 2nd round pick. They have two of them including our old 2nd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diggs43 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Personally, I think that trading our #1 for their #1 plus Briggs is a fair deal. I just question if that's what our team needs. :applause: Exactly Now if Briggs was a 3rd year vet, who made 2 pro bowls, and his position was DE or CB I'd say pull the trigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Do we keep the extra LBs for depth or is there another trade coming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warpath11 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 This whole Briggs thing reminds of Will Witherspoon last year. He came from Carolina (after playing behind that DLine) and signed a huge FA contract with St. Louis, granted he had a good year he certainly was not the dominant force everyone thought he was going to be. The difference between St. Louis and Carolina are the Defensive Lines. I believe Witherspoon might have played out of position but still he did not have the year everyone was expecting him to have due to his defensive surroundings (see line play)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drowland Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 What I hate about the possibility of this is the Skins are again going out and spending huge on someone elses headache when they should be working on getting a deal done with Cooley who's one of the more productive and vastly underpaid players on this team. Briggs is crying about making over $7 mil next year, so the Skins are going to save him? Poor guy. I think it's ridiculous. And having as much invested in LBs as they'll have, if this happens, will be insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earl Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 how come the bears can use our disinterest in arch as leverage against us, but we can't use brigg's stance against the bears as leverage against them? come on! why can't we get a mcgahee type deal? why can't the redskins underpay for a disgruntled player? .....answer-because danny boy doesn't have a poker face. I mean we weren't even looking for a LB and after the bears pitched briggs danny boy is walking around w/ a hard on talking to anyone who'll listen to him go on about his new man crush. WTF. He means well and i like how he spends money, but he needs to get out of personal decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Isn't Briggs a Sam? Don't we already have a decent Sam? So we got a great Sam, getting another great Sam, got a great mike this year and a young promising Will. Why two Sams? Are we going to play 2CanSam? I just don't get this at all. CG and JS need help. We need a strong safety. I don't understand and would rather get Calvin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClintonINFORSIX26 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Briggs and tim crowder from texas We gotta be trying to get more, cuz if not wouldnt this have been a done deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Do we keep the extra LBs for depth or is there another trade coming? I'm thinking we have been hit up for a RB and a LB for someones linemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milliondollarslim Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Briggs is one helluva tough player and outstanding linebacker ...at least he was for the Bears. I really think he was their BEST LB. Question is, who gets screwed here - Rocky who I think will prove to be a very good player, Lamar who is very versitile or.....say it ain't so Marcus????? Also, what do they think about the d-line? I think a very good arguement can be made for a disruptive DT or a all-around DE with some edge speed. Are Gholston and Montgomery the future? How about letting them prove that first!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tastes Like Chicken Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 You can't blame him for wanting market value. Kudos to Chicago for investing a mid-round pick (3rd round) on a player who produced 4 very good seasons, and in return (plus a low-1st round, 31st overall pick) they can get a Top 6 player in the draft. From an equity standpoint, they have doubled their investment: Value of pick used to draft Briggs: 250 Value of 31st pick in 2007: 600 TOTAL: 850 Value of Redskins pick, 6th pick in 2007: 1600 850 for 1600. They must have a GM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 I don't know why everyone says Briggs can't play in anything but Cover 2. Did he play it in College? High School? Pee Wee League? Seriously, I think he could learn the defense. Besides, we run a hybrid Cover 2 anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Nevermind, Briggs plays Will. I'm less upset now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitmandm Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Not good enough. They want that #6 pick and have a player who won't show up.I want their 3rd rounder also. This is absolutely correct!!!! The Bears are stuck, don't pay that much for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 terpfan/sekhmet187. Thanks for the info.I didn't realize it was over the franchise tag. The Redskins have a habit of signing players to big up-front money deals and having them rework the contract later in the options. Not that that is the same as franchizing a player, but I would imagine Briggs might eventually harbor the same resentment toward the Skins if we sign him now and ask to rework the deal in 2009 when his base salary would $10M or so... That's not what the Skins do. They give players very large signing bonuses and low base salaries for three years. Then in year four, the base salary escalates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin mark Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 how come the bears can use our disinterest in arch as leverage against us, but we can't use brigg's stance against the bears as leverage against them? come on! why can't we get a mcgahee type deal? why can't the redskins underpay for a disgruntled player? .....answer-because danny boy doesn't have a poker face. I mean we weren't even looking for a LB and after the bears pitched briggs danny boy is walking around w/ a hard on talking to anyone who'll listen to him go on about his new man crush. WTF. He means well and i like how he spends money, but he needs to get out of personal decisions. This is the situation if we had a GM, he would tell danny boy to put the checkbook up and wait until draft day when Chris Berman says, "The Redskins are now on the clock..." Then let chi call us back and offer us the kitchen sink!!!:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Personally, I think that trading our #1 for their #1 plus Briggs is a fair deal. I just question if that's what our team needs. Winner, winner chicken dinner. There's also the fact that he wants out of Chicago and won't even play for them. We should probably get a little something extra (ie. the second round pick in the Champ-CP deal) because of that. I mean how many NFL teams could expect to get a top #10 pick for a guy that has proclaimed he will never play for the again? It doesnt seem like we ever do much "negotiating." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzmuda Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 You can't blame him for wanting market value.Kudos to Chicago for investing a mid-round pick (3rd round) on a player who produced 4 very good seasons, and in return (plus a low-1st round, 31st overall pick) they can get a Top 6 player in the draft. From an equity standpoint, they have doubled their investment: Value of pick used to draft Briggs: 250 Value of 31st pick in 2007: 600 TOTAL: 850 Value of Redskins pick, 6th pick in 2007: 1600 850 for 1600. They must have a GM. The Patriots don't have a GM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loxley Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Has anyone yet even considered the remote possibility we might not pay Briggs more than the $7 mill a year he was going to get with Chicago. I mean I dont know zip about contracts in all fairness but can we afford to pay him the big bucks that he held out playing for Chicago for. I thought that trades could only be confirmed once the player had accepted the contract offered by the receiving club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.