Peter King Liked The Initial Briggs Trade Offer

[armada58]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/04/03/mmqb.te/1.html

I didn't see this posted in another thread. If I missed that posting, my apologies.

It's was good to see what appears to be the majority view from The Fans out in the National Sport Media about the Briggs Trade. I am very happy that talks have stalled. I was suprised to see that King supported The Redskins initial offer to Chicago.

[mikeyf316]

The fact that King supported it should have been enough reason for us to back out of it. Like he'd ever recommend something of benefit for us.

[ntotoro]

The fact that both King and Schefter thought it was a good trade proved that neither knew a damn thing about football.

[@DCGoldPants]

That's because they knew it wouldn't happen.

But if it had. You'd see a 180 like nothing before.

WORST TRADE OF THE CENTURY would be the headline.

[Ernie5]

I think it could have be a pretty good trade & absolutely a defensible one, but I would never take advice from King or Pastabelly. And Bufford is right: they would turn on us for making the deal as soon as it was made.

[Sarge]

He was probably trying to set up the danny. THe danny would read this and think, "Boy, that Peter King thinks this is a good deal, and he never thinks anything I do is good. I can make this deal and get some good press at the same time!"

Good thing the danny is too clever for Queen

[F Landry]

King said that they used him and Urlacher interchangebly (SP?) in the middle last year.

In that case, if we didn't sign Fletcher this would be an AMAZING trade for us.

It just isn't a position of need, therefore the trade should not be made.

Close the thread please.

[Peregrine]

Its quite simple. King wants whatever trade would hurt the Redskins the most.

[SkinsOrlando]

P. King thinks its a good trade? Then it isn't, nuff said.

[OBDammit]

Last fall, watching the Bears, I saw how they used Briggs and Urlacher interchangeably at both middle and outside linebacker,

===============================================================

I really don't know what games King was watching because the Bears never used Briggs in the middle. Urlacher played every single one of his plays as MLB. I watched every single game and that was never done.

Briggs played some middle in college and two years ago was talked about moving to middle when Url was hurt but that never happened either, Hunter Hillenmeyer played there.

King just blowing more smoke out of his fat *****.

[paintrain]

So did Clark Judge.. http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10106490

[Chief skin]

That Skins hater thinks it is a good deal for us then I am convinced more then ever it is a horrible mistake for us. JUST SAY NO TO BRIGGS

[AmishGangsta]

Don't worry, it'll all change if he becomes a Redskin.

[ouvan59]

Don't worry, it'll all change if he becomes a Redskin.

Ain't that the truth. If it had gone through they would have slammed us.

And in a vacuum the trade actually was a very good bargain for the Skins. They were getting a very good player and still keeping a 1st round pick. The problem is that they traded up to get Rocky last year and he needs to play. I don't care if there are going to be growing pains involved, he needs to play to get better. So unless Marcus Washington's injury is worse than being reported then you have to throw what we traded to move up and pick Rocky as part of the deal and all of a sudden it isn't that good of a deal.

[Rocky21]

Echo what others have stated here. Peter Queen doesn't know his ass from his elbow.

[armada58]

It's amazing to me that the question King responds to pretty much lays out every reason that it's a bad deal for The Redskins. But Kind ignores those reasons and says it's a good deal if we don't give up Macintosh or Marshall.

I just love hypocricy of the media who rip The Skins every year for doing stuff like this yet always seem to be on board when the deals are made/proposed. They are the ultimate abusers of hindsight and are never accountable.

[ChiefPowhatan17]

It's a good trade for the Bears, not us. I am so glad that this talk is dead. Now we can move on, let Rocky develop into a great player and use Marshall at any of 3 LB spots, we don't need anymore LB's.

[JoeGibbsThickandthin]

The trade did not make sense. It would of made sense if we used our money on a Clements instead of a Fletcher and Smoot. And they needed another linebacker.

We already got a linebacker. So now we have 4. Briggs and Clements with the 31 pick seems fine. But that is not the route they went.

[heyholetsgogrant]

So did Clark Judge.. http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10106490

" The deal favored Washington. Look, I don't care what you think of Briggs, whether you believe he's overrated or underrated. All I know is he's a two-time Pro Bowl choice and a proven veteran. You know what you have in Briggs because it's right there on videotape.

But let's say Angelo had gone ahead and accepted Washington's offer. What would he gain in return with the sixth pick? An unproven player. Sure, it could be someone like Michigan's Alan Branch or Clemson's Gaines Adams, defensive standouts who are expected to excel in the pros."

-Jerry Angelo

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10106490

isn't this what the skins do every year? they trade away their picks for proven players?? why is it when the bears try to trade a vet for picks, its called "But let's say Angelo had gone ahead and accepted Washington's offer. What would he gain in return with the sixth pick? An unproven player."

-Grant

[ouvan59]

It's a good trade for the Bears, not us.

It really isn't. They would be giving up a 2-time probowler and a 1st rounder to get a higher first rounder. If everything goes perfectly they might get a player that is as good as Briggs.

This is the rare trade that wouldn't really be a big help to either team.