Skinsinparadise Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 a few tid bits different from the Washington Post article, lot of it similar but in case people are interested since I didn't see it posted. They stress the deal isn't dead per se. http://www.washingtontimes.com/sports/20070404-124041-1610r.htm Briggs talks break down By Ryan O'Halloran THE WASHINGTON TIMES April 4, 2007 Trade talks between the Washington Redskins and Chicago Bears centering on linebacker Lance Briggs broke down yesterday, according to multiple sources. The stalemate developed when the Redskins declined to include second-year linebacker Rocky McIntosh as part of their proposal. The Redskins had offered their No. 6 overall pick for Briggs and the Bears' No. 31 selection. Although discussions can re-ignite before the NFL Draft, which takes place April 28-29, it appears unlikely a deal will be completed this week. The Bears seem uninterested in paying millions of dollars to a high draft pick but could approach the Redskins if they have a trading partner for the sixth pick. "There are times when talking about a trade you say, 'This is all we're going to do,' " an NFL executive said. "And you think it's a dead issue. But this is a fluid situation, so it could change." Bears general manager Jerry Angelo presented a counteroffer to the Redskins yesterday. But as expected, the Redskins stood by the proposal they made at last week's league meetings in Arizona. The Bears want McIntosh because the team doesn't have a viable in-house option at weak-side linebacker. The Redskins want to keep McIntosh in the fold even though Briggs' arrival would have made him a backup. Briggs is a two-time Pro Bowl player who is young (26), durable (he hasn't missed a game in four pro seasons) and productive (363 tackles the last three years). But a veteran NFL scout wondered why the Redskins coveted Briggs because of the different way he would be used in Gregg Williams' scheme. "I thought they were set at linebacker like everybody else," the scout said. "I'm a little confused as to why they want Lance as bad as they seem to want him." The scout said the Bears used Briggs regularly on third down. The Redskins' philosophy the last three seasons was to use two linebackers -- the middle and strong-side backers -- and three cornerbacks on third down. "He wouldn't be as productive in their defense," the scout said. "Chicago's defense is designed to have the weak-side linebacker never be blocked and make every kind of tackle and play known to man. In [the Redskins' defense], the weak-side linebacker is taking on offensive tackles. He's not going to be the player for them as he was or will be for the Bears." If Briggs isn't dealt to the Redskins, that leaves McIntosh and Lemar Marshall on the roster to play the position that has been in flux since LaVar Arrington's injury problems began early in the 2004 season. Warrick Holdman started every game last year, including 14 at weak-side linebacker, but remains unsigned and isn't expected to return. The Redskins were the only team to contact the Bears for Briggs. If he remains with the Bears under the franchise tag and reports on time, he is scheduled to earn $7.2 million this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Worthy Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Its already been said the Skins wont change anything with the trade. Either Briggs and the 31st or nothing at all. On to the next issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted April 4, 2007 Author Share Posted April 4, 2007 Its already been said the Skins wont change anything with the trade. Either Briggs and the 31st or nothing at all. On to the next issue. All right buddy, its one of our two major newspapers in town and its the article that covered the story today. We put the WP article up. Figured some people might be interested in reading this one, too. I was. If you aren't, cool enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 It wouldn't surprise me if we somehow got them to throw in Grossman if we threw in Rocky and Campbell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffskins66 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 This is the best news I've heard all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21Knock_U_Out Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 It wouldn't surprise me if we somehow got them to throw in Grossman if we threw in Rocky and Campbell. Why would we want Grossman?Why would we toss in Campbell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Why would we want Grossman?Why would we toss in Campbell? You're making the mistake of trying to rationalize what our front office is doing. BIG MISTAKE. I could name any big name player and there'd be a justifiable (at least to our front office) reason to get them. For instance, with Grossman, he took the Bears to the super bowl in his first full season as the starter. Campbell couldn't even break the starting lineup til his second year. And Rocky couldn't until game 16. Our front office isn't made up of the brightest bulbs in the basket, so nothing they do surprises me any more. Why would we even want Briggs? As numerous threads have already stated, WE DON'T NEED HIM EITHER, but that didn't stop us from making an offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21Knock_U_Out Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 You're making the mistake of trying to rationalize what our front office is doing. BIG MISTAKE. I could name any big name player and there'd be a justifiable (at least to our front office) reason to get them. For instance, with Grossman, he took the Bears to the super bowl in his first full season as the starter. Campbell couldn't even break the starting lineup til his second year. And Rocky couldn't until game 16. Our front office isn't made up of the brightest bulbs in the basket, so nothing they do surprises me any more. Why would we even want Briggs? As numerous threads have already stated, WE DON'T NEED HIM EITHER, but that didn't stop us from making an offer. In that case maybe if we toss in Taylor and Washington they will toss in Urlacher........ :jerk:Grossman was their weakest link on offense, and was not impressive.Campbell didnt get in cause Gibbs wanted the Veteran to pull it out.Not because of Campbells ability.If you watched the games you would know that Campbell has some good skills, better than Gross man .IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
da#1skinsfan Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 It wouldn't surprise me if we somehow got them to throw in Grossman if we threw in Rocky and Campbell. And maybe if we throw in Betts they'll throw in Cedric Benson...and maybe if we throw in Moss, they'll give us Berrian...and maybe if we throw in Griffin, they'll throw in Tank.....and maybe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC girl Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Man we need a GM, look at what this scout said, he is like why on earth would they want him, he will not be used well there...ugh why can't anyone see this, all the fans can! At least they killed the deal when they asked for more, I hope it stays dead! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 In that case maybe if we toss in Taylor and Washington they will toss in Urlacher........ :jerk:Grossman was their weakest link on offense, and was not impressive.Campbell didnt get in cause Gibbs wanted the Veteran to pull it out.Not because of Campbells ability.If you watched the games you would know that Campbell has some good skills, better than Gross man .IMO Of corse I know that, but does OUR FRONT OFFICE know that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 And maybe if we throw in Betts they'll throw in Cedric Benson...and maybe if we throw in Moss, they'll give us Berrian...and maybe if we throw in Griffin, they'll throw in Tank.....and maybe... shhhhh. I dont want Danny to read this thread and start getting ideas. We don't need those guys on our team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesbondman Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 The 3-4 defense has been discussed here but I do not recall any articles or experts giving consideration that the Redskins are seriously looking at converting. Because they want Briggs but are unwilling to part with Rocky, this could be a sign that they are converting. Especially since Briggs is built more like Fletcher and would be a solid inside linebacker. It is possible that the Skins have determined that Briggs has more talent and skill than someone they could draft as a defensive lineman. So instead of getting a small speed rusher, perhaps they are thinking that they will have better value at the number 31 pick if they are drafting a nose tackle. They would actually be a pretty solid plan since Griffin, Wynn, Daniels, and Goldston would make better defensive ends in a 3-4 and Salvea could be the other nose tackle along with the 31st pick. The Skins could even be thinking about taking a cornerback with the 31st pick and then grabbing an experienced veteran defensive lineman to help out at nose tackle. Anyway, this is just one explanation why they might be pursuing Briggs with such fervor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Move along. Nothing to see here. Move along Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgitta Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 You're making the mistake of trying to rationalize what our front office is doing. BIG MISTAKE. I could name any big name player and there'd be a justifiable (at least to our front office) reason to get them. For instance, with Grossman, he took the Bears to the super bowl in his first full season as the starter. Campbell couldn't even break the starting lineup til his second year. And Rocky couldn't until game 16. LOL! Tell me you're not serious when you say Grossman "took" the Bears to the Superbowl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 LOL!Tell me you're not serious when you say Grossman "took" the Bears to the Superbowl? Thats not my opinion. But just like I wouldn't say that Briggs earned himself a pro bowl. I'd say that it had a lot to do with the D line and his MLB. But our front office seems to get a man crish on every player they see, then they come up with some bogus reason for doing it that these fans just eat up like its fried chicken. So do I think they could do this with Grossman, it wouldn't surprise me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veretax Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 It wouldn't surprise me if we somehow got them to throw in Grossman if we threw in Rocky and Campbell. Good lord why would you give them Campbell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.