WP: Bears to Come With Briggs Counteroffer Team Likely Seeks a Redskins Defender

[DP Redskin]

I could see us putting Lemar in the deal. His position would be Briggs position. But I don't see us put anybody else in the deal. We must keep Rocky he will be a good LB for us.

[brianm23]

Don't listen to this guy I pulled out the statistics of how portis help our offense improve and Champ Bailey statistically did not help the Broncos defense....But he just keeps saying some much bull he doesnt even know what hes talking about, Let him talk...hes not very intelligent and makes himself look dumb

No, what looks dumb is you don't take in other personel on the team that make those "stats" possible. Like I said, ask anybody up here if they were drafting first and had those 2 players to pick from, who would they pick. Anybody not a portis "fanboy" would be picking bailey my friend. Get over it. We lost on yet another trade.

[jrfriedm]

Even if we don't go through with this deal, the damage is already done as far as I'm concerned.

It's already given the appearance that the Redskins are a "crazy for big names, " kind of team and if you have a "fading " big name player, you can pawn him off on the Redskins for tip top money and draft picks.

It's clear that Chicago doesn't respect the knowledge of our front office, to even attempt to demand all that they have for Briggs.

Certainly Briggs does not appear to be a "team before me", kinda guy.

Oh how I miss the Jack Kent Cooke days

The Bears have no intention of the Redskins accepting this offer. They are trying to save face with their players saying, "you can't force us to trade you by saying you're not going to play for us. We're going to do what's best for our team not for you." And you can't blaim them for saying that either.

[ArmchairRedskin]

The fact that we threw in a draft pick for the Bailey/Portis trade is the only thing that figures negatively for us. Springs played just as well as Bailey did the first year, but not since then and the Donkeys still haven't found anyone to replace Portis' production, RB friendly scheme or no. I'd say both teams both benefited and suffered some on the trade. That extra draft pick didnt help the Donks in the long run, but either way we lose on that point.

The fact that Bailey didnt wanna be here is a big factor that you can't ignore. Besides, wasn't there some talk of infidelity on his part and his wife demanding they find another place to move to? I thought there was something to that effect going on.

[DieselPwr44]

No, what looks dumb is you don't take in other personel on the team that make those "stats" possible. Like I said, ask anybody up here if they were drafting first and had those 2 players to pick from, who would they pick. Anybody not a portis "fanboy" would be picking bailey my friend. Get over it. We lost on yet another trade.

Would you trade Barry Sanders for Deion Sanders with both in their prime?

[scruffylookin]

Would you trade Barry Sanders for Deion Sanders with both in their prime?

Game. Set. And Match.

Barry Sanders by a mile over Deion.

[Darth Tater]

I have one question if we trade for Briggs, is GW about to be fired?

[fpickering]

He didn't want to be here because we stuck the Franchise tag on him. (much like Briggs situation with Bears) Had we just negotiated a deal as we did with Samuels and Arrington, then he would have wanted to be here. Well, I'd rather have Tatum Bell and Champ Bailey then just Portis alone. So if you are going to ask that question, put in the full equation.

We offered Bailey a nine-year, $55 million contract with $14.7 million in bonus money before the start of the 2004 season, but he was unhappy with the structure and some of the other clauses in the offer.

Since he was not willing to sign, we were forced to designate him as a franchise player to prevent him from becoming a free agent.

He was on the way out so the comparison is Portis or Tatum Bell. Take your pick. This is the full equation.

[fpickering]

No, what looks dumb is you don't take in other personel on the team that make those "stats" possible. Like I said, ask anybody up here if they were drafting first and had those 2 players to pick from, who would they pick. Anybody not a portis "fanboy" would be picking bailey my friend. Get over it. We lost on yet another trade.

You failed to mention that player A (Champ Bailey) did not want to play for the Redskins so you would lose him in free agency for nothing while player B (Clinton Portis) who is younger and in his first two seasons is already one of the best RBs in the league is willing to sign a long term deal.

If you are going to make the comparison factor in the full equation.

[brianm23]

Would you trade Barry Sanders for Deion Sanders with both in their prime?

I'd rather have Bailey or Clements before Deion in his prime. Primetime was a p^ssy that couldn't tackle. Bailey and Clements could play the run. In the situation you just put out, Barry was the best back in the NFL(of all time no doubt) and Portis still wasn't the best back during that time of the trade. So you're comparing best of different positions. The situation with Bailey/Portis, it was a person who was Best at his position compared to a person who was a top 5-8 at a position. Is there any comparison? I don't think so.

[brianm23]

You failed to mention that player A (Champ Bailey) did not want to play for the Redskins so you would lose him in free agency for nothing while player B (Clinton Portis) who is younger and in his first two seasons is already one of the best RBs in the league is willing to sign a long term deal.

If you are going to make the comparison factor in the full equation.

That's what the "Franchise" tag is for my friend. Play or watch TV. He wanted a long term contract, but Danny boy didn't want to pay him what he was asking. He was tired of seeing lame arses like Arrington command top dollar yet wasn't even the best player on the field.

[DieselPwr44]

I'd rather have Bailey or Clements before Deion in his prime. Primetime was a p^ssy that couldn't tackle. Bailey and Clements could play the run. In the situation you just put out, Barry was the best back in the NFL(of all time no doubt) and Portis still wasn't the best back during that time of the trade. So you're comparing best of different positions. The situation with Bailey/Portis, it was a person who was Best at his position compared to a person who was a top 5-8 at a position. Is there any comparison? I don't think so.

Oh but there is a comparison. Any team would take a franchise back over the "supposed" best corner in the league.

[brianm23]

Game. Set. And Match.

Barry Sanders by a mile over Deion.

Not really. He chose the best back of all time. Portis wasn't the top at his position during the time of the trade, Bailey was. Had Portis been LT or somebody of that stature, sure.

Hell, I'd take Bailey before I would Deon. Deon was only a cover guy. Been a many CBs better than Deon. (Rod Woodson, Bailey, Clements, Darryl Green) Those guys can play the run and cover.

[fpickering]

That's what the "Franchise" tag is for my friend. Play or watch TV. He wanted a long term contract, but Danny boy didn't want to pay him what he was asking. He was tired of seeing lame arses like Arrington command top dollar yet wasn't even the best player on the field.

Now you are changing your argument. First it was this:

Had we just negotiated a deal as we did with Samuels and Arrington, then he would have wanted to be here

Now it seems that you are saying we did offer him a long term deal but it was not enough. What do you think we should have paid him? Keep in mind that we were cap strapped.

[Dana87]

You failed to mention that player A (Champ Bailey) did not want to play for the Redskins so you would lose him in free agency for nothing while player B (Clinton Portis) who is younger and in his first two seasons is already one of the best RBs in the league is willing to sign a long term deal.

If you are going to make the comparison factor in the full equation.

You're waisting your time. Some people refuse to let the facts get in the way of their opinion. The other part of Bailey wanting to leave is that he didn't want to start all over again with a new coach and a new D-coordinator. He wanted a chance to play in the playoffs.

[brianm23]

Now you are changing your argument. First it was this:

Now it seems that you are saying we did offer him a long term deal but it was not enough. What do you think we should have paid him? Keep in mind that we were cap strapped.

Why were we capped strapped? Oh, because of stupid arse FO decisions. Much like the ones we are ****ing about currently. I'd had rather paid the guy that played his position far and above everybody else, than some dude that liked to freelance and do his own thing on the field.

[2006Skins]

I still don't like the trade... I'm not a big fan of messing with the chemistry at this point.

[HeHateMe]

It's already a trade that favors the Bears a great deal.

Anything else would be adding insult to injury.

[ClintonINFORSIX26]

No, what looks dumb is you don't take in other personel on the team that make those "stats" possible. Like I said, ask anybody up here if they were drafting first and had those 2 players to pick from, who would they pick. Anybody not a portis "fanboy" would be picking bailey my friend. Get over it. We lost on yet another trade.

You have no idea what your talking about...you have yet to make a valid point, everything you say is your opinion you have not backed it up with anything

[DieselPwr44]

Just to follow up on an earlier post about the whole "this is just speculation reported as fact by the WP", here's an article by Pat Kirwan posted on NFL.com last Thursday(March 29) where he basically repeated everything he and Tim Ryan talked about on NFL Radio.

so adding a player to the package is probably the way to go if the Redskins want to close the deal. The Bears will have a need at linebacker if Briggs is gone, so a player like LeMar Marshall (104 tackles last year), who is going to be a backup if Briggs joins new addition London Fletcher on the Redskins defense, might interest Jerry Angelo. With Tank Johnson's problems, maybe a young defensive tackle like Kedric Golston, with 12 starts and 44 tackles, is the answer to close negotiations.

Just makes you wonder when anyone at the WP says "according to our sources"...

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/10095969

[4skins23]

The Bears have no intention of the Redskins accepting this offer. They are trying to save face with their players saying, "you can't force us to trade you by saying you're not going to play for us. We're going to do what's best for our team not for you." And you can't blaim them for saying that either.

I CAN blame the Bears for saying "we are doing whats best for the team." because they are liars. I live in the suburbs of Chicago. Born and raised here. I know Bears. They are anything BUT "for the team" They aren't willing to pay for quality players. Never have, never will. Its an A** backwards team. The only credit you can give the Bears is they know how to develop and draft quality defensive players. They fall short on developing offense "OBVIOUSLY."

:bearsuck::bearsuck::bearsuck::bearsuck::bearsuck::bearsuck::bearsuck::bearsuck::bearsuck::bearsuck:

[Jethrodsp]

Tell you what Chicago:

we'll trade you Rocky and Lemar for Briggs. Forget the draft picks...

[brianm23]

You have no idea what your talking about...you have yet to make a valid point, everything you say is your opinion you have not backed it up with anything

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2822035&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab3pos1

When Clinton Portis makes the list (or comes remotely close to the top) of Best Offensive Players in the NFL, then you might have a point. Till then, shut up. You are like Washington's front office. You think you have a good bead on stuff until it slips your grasp. Again, wasn't remotely a close deal. Ask ANYONE (beyond a redskins fan) and see what they say. Sure we both got needs out of it, but still doesn't change the fact kid.

[dinzelwashington]

eff this trade. like someone said earlier, we dont even need briggs. they trying to get the better deal. dan proposed this trade. dan starts all the bs. joe will finish it tho. man i wouldnt even have take the adam for a 6th rounder. adam was a proven player. i bet he still is in a organized d. we cant just point on adam, cause we gotta admit, our whole d was offpoint. bears got the better deal, cause lovie smith know whats up with AA. we saw him play in STL. he was good. GW just didnt know how to use him to his full capability. and now bears want rocky, golston, lemar. this is getting rediculous. trippen. if this deal goes thru, ill be trippen over my cell phone cause this shiet is stupid. anyways, im done, cant wait for this august. right now im happy with the players we have c come draft day. as of this point, no more trades only on draft day, and thats to move up for CJ

[SkinsFTW]

Not really. He chose the best back of all time. Portis wasn't the top at his position during the time of the trade, Bailey was. Had Portis been LT or somebody of that stature, sure.

Hell, I'd take Bailey before I would Deon. Deon was only a cover guy. Been a many CBs better than Deon. (Rod Woodson, Bailey, Clements, Darryl Green) Those guys can play the run and cover.

Totally agree.

A lot of Deion fans just don't see that he was far from complete and he even got toasted more than other CBs just because he would go for the pick when he wasn't in position.

Plus Portis came from the Denver RB factory. He has proven to be tougher and more of a team player than I thought when we got him though. But I wonder if you could have just replaced him with Betts on the 2005 team and had the same 5 game streak?