Suggest League-Wide Moratorium of Skins FO!!!

[cakmoney61]

This is a 70% facetious and 30% serious post from a long-time, die-hard, and now suffering fan of my beloved team.

With this Lance Briggs trade rumor rearing its ugly head again, I came up with a strategy that should have long-term benefits for us Skins fans. Mr. Goodell should establish a league-wide moratorium in which teams couldn't make deals of any kind with the Skins FO for at least 3 years. The moratorium would get at least four things accomplished.

1. It would stop the league-wide fleecing of Skins' draft picks and players.

2. The Skins would use those 3 years to get training on how to evaluate college and pro talent.

3. The Skins would also get training on how to negotiate with other FOs in trades to avoid future fleecing.

4. Finally, it would force the Skins to practice the art of evaluating college talent because they would have their full complement of draft picks and would have to use every one of them.

If you can think of any other advantages to such a moratorium, please share.

Edited: My post is not intended to offend. I sincerely love the Redskins and I always will. So please don't tell me you love them more than me because you don't know that.

Regardless, HTTR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Art]

The problem is everyone could use a good laugh, but, you didn't write anything funny. You and I probably think the same on Briggs, that we don't like him. Yet, you think it's stupid of the Skins to consider his value is approximately that of the No. 16 pick of the draft. Do you seriously not think that's fair value for Briggs, EVEN if you hate the man's game? No, you can't intelligently think that's unfair or negative. In fact, from a pure value play, you'd say, "Wow, we made out on that," which is why the Bears are trying for more and we hope we don't yield .

Personally, I'd prefer Briggs and a DT at No. 31 in the draft to Okoye or Landry at No. 6 and nothing else. Wouldn't you? And I say that not even LIKING Briggs . One proven guy and a late first -- maybe Branch if he keeps falling -- seems better than one unproven guy.

[SkinsGuy]

This thread would be funny if it wasn't so arrogant.

Get training?? From who? You? The other "geniuses" on this board?

No one is more unhappy than I at the sorry record that the Redskins finished with last season.

Does that fill me with a lot of egotistical nonsense that I think I suddenly know more about FO operations (a job I and just about everyone on this board have NEVER done) then the people currently in charge? No.

The bad season had more to do with key injuries and poor coaching decisions than talent evaluations (Archuletta aside).

I say sit back, relax, take a deep breath, calm down, and let the draft happen.

[stwasm]

Man law!

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

The problem is everyone could use a good laugh, but, you didn't write anything funny. You and I probably think the same on Briggs, that we don't like him. Yet, you think it's stupid of the Skins to consider his value is approximately that of the No. 16 pick of the draft. Do you seriously not think that's fair value for Briggs, EVEN if you hate the man's game? No, you can't intelligently think that's unfair or negative. In fact, from a pure value play, you'd say, "Wow, we made out on that," which is why the Bears are trying for more and we hope we don't yield .

Personally, I'd prefer Briggs and a DT at No. 31 in the draft to Okoye or Landry at No. 6 and nothing else. Wouldn't you? And I say that not even LIKING Briggs . One proven guy and a late first -- maybe Branch if he keeps falling -- seems better than one unproven guy.

briggs isnt worth the pick at all which is the reason no other teams are mentioned other than us in this trade. briggs benefits from playing next to urlacher and the rest of that ridiculous defense, and if i remember correctly, warrick holdman looked good in chicago too and we saw how that worked out.

but ill agree with you on branch, im PRAYING he ends up here tomorrow.

[Art]

briggs isnt worth the pick at all which is the reason no other teams are mentioned other than us in this trade. briggs benefits from playing next to urlacher and the rest of that ridiculous defense, and if i remember correctly, warrick holdman looked good in chicago too and we saw how that worked out.

but ill agree with you on branch, im PRAYING he ends up here tomorrow.

You aren't paying attention if you think no other teams are talking to the Bears. Three others have already been confirmed as talking to them. Tampa's one, but, the Bears would have to give up even a little more for the extra value of No. 4. That you believe Briggs benefits from playing next to Uracher and the rest of that ridiculous is fine. I don't disagree. Where we might disagree is in how good our defense has been, and how it has certainly been better and on par with the Bears two of the last three years.

Our defense has added Fletcher, Smoot and Stoutmire to extend depth and plug the real obvious gaps we had last year. If Briggs were playing here, he'd be playing on a pretty talented defense. Weaker than the Bears up front, better than the Bears at backer and at at least interesting to discuss in the secondary.

As bad as we were last year, that's not probably what we are. We may not be Top 5 again, but, we probably won't be bottom 5 either unless everyone gets hurt.

[Skin Patrol]

Personally, I'd prefer Briggs and a DT at No. 31 in the draft to Okoye or Landry at No. 6 and nothing else. Wouldn't you? And I say that not even LIKING Briggs . One proven guy and a late first -- maybe Branch if he keeps falling -- seems better than one unproven guy.

That's a pretty favorable way of putting things, as there's a third option available. We use the #6 to trade down as much as possible, scooping up picks along the way, doing our best to address the D-Line with the first selection we end up with. I know that option is uncertain, but I vew it as so favorable over the Briggs trade that I'd rather take a chance on that then sit now with Briggs and the #31. Also, it is as likely as not that depending on who goes 1-5 in the draft, the Bears will be more willing to trade up to the #6 to get whomever they were targeting. It's possible that we could sweaten the deal by waiting til draft day, meaning there's no special impetus for us to trade down with Chicago now simply because we don't know if we can trade down with #6.

Also, I would revisit the original question. I can see why preferring Briggs and the #31 to merely Okoye or Landry sounds preferable, but then again I might not. Briggs brings a large price tag with him (as any #6 pick would, admittedly) + we have to pay the #31. We'd be tieing up a lot of money in the Weak Side Linebacker position when we have two relatively cheap and serviceable guys available to play there right now. Certainly Briggs makes us a better Defense, but given that teams have a finite amount of resources to spend on personnel, I still might think it's foolish to acquire Lance Briggs at all based on his price tag.

[Art]

That's a pretty favorable way of putting things, as there's a third option available. We use the #6 to trade down as much as possible, scooping up picks along the way, doing our best to address the D-Line with the first selection we end up with. I know that option is uncertain, but I vew it as so favorable over the Briggs trade that I'd rather take a chance on that then sit now with Briggs and the #31. Also, it is as likely as not that depending on who goes 1-5 in the draft, the Bears will be more willing to trade up to the #6 to get whomever they were targeting. It's possible that we could sweaten the deal by waiting til draft day, meaning there's no special impetus for us to trade down with Chicago now simply because we don't know if we can trade down with #6.

Also, I would revisit the original question. I can see why preferring Briggs and the #31 to merely Okoye or Landry sounds preferable, but then again I might not. Briggs brings a large price tag with him (as any #6 pick would, admittedly) + we have to pay the #31. We'd be tieing up a lot of money in the Weak Side Linebacker position when we have two relatively cheap and serviceable guys available to play there right now. Certainly Briggs makes us a better Defense, but given that teams have a finite amount of resources to spend on personnel, I still might think it's foolish to acquire Lance Briggs at all based on his price tag.

Trading down only becomes possible if something strange happens up top. The Vikings won't move up a few spots for Quinn because they KNOW we aren't taking him, and, if Peterson is there, the Vikings aren't, and the Falcons won't. If Peterson is gone, maybe, but otherwise, trading down is the least obvious, least certain thing we can do.

But, say we move down to nine for a third rounder.

The question remains. What's better, Briggs and a first, or No. 9 and a third. I think even there you know the answer. Now, can we move down from there, again and again? Yes.

Now, tell me how many picks do you envision making the roster. My guess is two with maybe two more on the practice squad. You want to get 10 picks to cut 6?

The D-Line, for example, has a pretty crowded set of players. You aren't going to take a lot of guys to cut Daniels and Wynn and Griffin and Salave'a -- though if he can't walk, maybe -- etc. You have room for a guy if he's great, but you're not going to have room for more than that. So, why take three guys when you know that going in?

[Art]

Oh, and for the record, I PREFER to stay at No. 6 and take Landry. But, I know how dumb that is and how irrational it is if the opposing option is to take Briggs AND a player. I just hate Briggs is all.

[Skin Patrol]

Trading down only becomes possible if something strange happens up top. The Vikings won't move up a few spots for Quinn because they KNOW we aren't taking him, and, if Peterson is there, the Vikings aren't, and the Falcons won't. If Peterson is gone, maybe, but otherwise, trading down is the least obvious, least certain thing we can do.

While I'm skeptical, I don't think I'm as skeptical as you are. I feel like a trade down can happen, although it might be a function of us taking less than the Draft Value Chart would dictate. And I'm fine with that.

The question remains. What's better, Briggs and a first, or No. 9 and a third. I think even there you know the answer. Now, can we move down from there, again and again? Yes.

As I said earlier I might actually answer I'd rather have the No. 9 and a 3rd rounder. You probably think that makes me delusional, but I've presented my (perhaps tortured) reasoning.

Now, tell me how many picks do you envision making the roster. My guess is two with maybe two more on the practice squad. You want to get 10 picks to cut 6?

More picks are better than less picks. If 4 picks is the difference between 2 guys on our roster, I absolutely want to fly as quickly as possible towards 10 picks. 1st-3rd rounders should make the team no matter what, so that should be 3 players on the roster even if we only had 3 picks (in the 1st 3 rounds). I'd say 2:1 or worse on cuts from 5-7, and somewhere in between in the 4th. I could be way off on that, but I think it's a reasonable place to start. Even if there is 60% total attrition on draft picks, it's still worthwhile to hoard picks.

The D-Line, for example, has a pretty crowded set of players. You aren't going to take a lot of guys to cut Daniels and Wynn and Griffin and Salave'a -- though if he can't walk, maybe -- etc. You have room for a guy if he's great, but you're not going to have room for more than that. So, why take three guys when you know that going in?

The problem with Daniels and Wynn and Griffin and Salave'a is that none of them are really that good. Renaldo Wynn I felt might've been a cut casualty just because he costs the team a lot of money for nothing. In a best case scenario a DE in the 1st round pressures Daniels for the starting job, at worst he replaces Wynn (who can then be cut). In the interior a 1st round DT takes Salave'a's job (or is it Golston's job?) and hopefully Griffin's by year end if Golston keeps earning his way to the front of the line.

[Santana Clause]

The problem is everyone could use a good laugh, but, you didn't write anything funny. You and I probably think the same on Briggs, that we don't like him. Yet, you think it's stupid of the Skins to consider his value is approximately that of the No. 16 pick of the draft. Do you seriously not think that's fair value for Briggs, EVEN if you hate the man's game? No, you can't intelligently think that's unfair or negative. In fact, from a pure value play, you'd say, "Wow, we made out on that," which is why the Bears are trying for more and we hope we don't yield .

Personally, I'd prefer Briggs and a DT at No. 31 in the draft to Okoye or Landry at No. 6 and nothing else. Wouldn't you? And I say that not even LIKING Briggs . One proven guy and a late first -- maybe Branch if he keeps falling -- seems better than one unproven guy.

Not if you have to pay Briggs $50 million plus at a position where you are set.

[ntotoro]

That's a pretty favorable way of putting things, as there's a third option available. We use the #6 to trade down as much as possible, scooping up picks along the way, doing our best to address the D-Line with the first selection we end up with.

That's a great fantasy. Unfortunately it rarely happens lately.

Not everyone wants a #6 pick. Some people here think it's a given that someone will trade for it and I just don't understand why. People want to think that top-10 pick is like manna from Heaven and people will line up and throw anything we want at us to get that pick. It just doesn't work that way.

[Dallsux]

I just hate Briggs is all.

Why do you hate Briggs, if you don't mind my asking?

[Art]

Patrol,

Daniels is a Top 5 defensive end against the run. That's not a guess. Wynn used to be, but has diminished some, but remains versatile in that he can move inside on passing downs. He's the most likely to be cut to be honest. None of them HAS to be great, though, to beat out any lower round prospect. No sixth-rounder is going to be on our roster OVER Daniels. Won't happen. So, why bother doing it. More picks is pointless when you know you won't have them here in September. Too many spots are locked in, whether for ability, leadership or simply back loaded money and current guarantees that requires at least a year or two more before you can move them.

Having more picks simply to have them isn't wise. Making the most of those you do is.

[Dallsux]

Not if you have to pay Briggs $50 million plus at a position where you are set.

What do you think we would pay a #6 pick?

[Skin Patrol]

That's a great fantasy. Unfortunately it rarely happens lately.

Not everyone wants a #6 pick. Some people here think it's a given that someone will trade for it and I just don't understand why. People want to think that top-10 pick is like manna from Heaven and people will line up and throw anything we want at us to get that pick. It just doesn't work that way.

I never presented it as anything other than a possibility. But isn't it strange that you're deriding the possibility of trading down since that's exactly what we are currently locked in debate about?

Hello? Lance Briggs and the #31 would be a trade down situation.

[Art]

Not if you have to pay Briggs $50 million plus at a position where you are set.

That's not what we'd pay him in guarantees. And, even if it was, if four years from how he was in multiple Pro Bowls and was an All Pro, we'd be thinking, "Damn, what a deal we made."

[pjfootballer]

I sincerely love the Redskins and I always will. So please don't tell me you love them more than me because you don't.

This is the only part that made me laugh. How do you know? Is there a Redskins FAN-O-METER? :doh:

[Dallsux]

This is the only part that made me laugh. How do you know? Is there a Redskins FAN-O-METER? :doh:

Yes. And his reaches the top. I can hear the bell go off, everytime he hits it. ding, ding, ding

[Art]

Why do you hate Briggs, if you don't mind my asking?

Because I'm stupid .

Washington was the best linebacker in the league two years ago and Briggs got All Pro. Garbage . I think Briggs is a complementary player is all. He is not the guy you game plan for or around in my view. He makes a difference, but he's not a difference maker. He isn't the guy you worry about. He doesn't make the sudden, monster plays, routinely that change games/seasons. To me, he has immense value and is worth a great deal, but, not what he's going to get paid because, to me, THAT kind of player has to be unique and universally seen to be so.

But, with the money an above average guard like Dockery got, a guy who is legitimately a Top 10 linebacker will get more, and weakside backer, in our system, doesn't require a stud, it merely requires a guy who does what he's expected to do.

I fear the real value in Briggs is the team thinks Washington may not come fully back, in which case, Briggs is the only move we can make.

[Skin Patrol]

Patrol,

Daniels is a Top 5 defensive end against the run. That's not a guess.

I think you're probably giving Daniels too much credit. Though he was stuck playing with Warrick Holdman behind him, he still has a lot to answer for. There wasn't all that much fluctation anywhere on our line defensively against the run -- we were inept everywhere. By one metric, 23rd on Left Ends, 31st on Left Tackles, 24th up the middle between the Tackles, 26th on Right Tackle, 26th on Right End. I don't doubt that Phillip Daniels used to be a Top 5 DE against the run. That isn't the case anymore, though :2cents: .

Wynn used to be, but has diminished some, but remains versatile in that he can move inside on passing downs. He's the most likely to be cut to be honest.

I would agree with this. He saw the field 15 times last year, started once, and picked up 15 tackles and 0 sacks. Demetric Evans, or some 6th rounder, can play that non-role, and they won't cost the team 4M next year.

None of them HAS to be great, though, to beat out any lower round prospect. No sixth-rounder is going to be on our roster OVER Daniels. Won't happen. So, why bother doing it. More picks is pointless when you know you won't have them here in September. Too many spots are locked in, whether for ability, leadership or simply back loaded money and current guarantees that requires at least a year or two more before you can move them.

A 6th rounder beat out Joe Salave'a, or is damn near close to doing so. Why is Daniels such a sacred cow Defensively? I didn't see anything last year that suggested he's that good, so I have to conclude age is catching up with him. He's 34 years old. His best years are behind him, right? Maybe a 6th rounder couldn't replace Daniels, but if you brought in 4 6th round DEs I am certain at least one of them could give Daniels a run for his money, just as Kedric Golston did on the interior last year.

I am operating under the assumption that a 1st round DE can take Phillip Daniels starting job. But even if that isn't the case, I am certain of this fact: One day, Phillip Daniels will not be the starting Defensive End on the Washington Redskins. As Coach Gibbs made clear at the press conference, a 1st round pick doesn't need to play immediately. We can draft Daniels future replacement this year so that he learns the scheme, gets some quality PT in rotation, and challenges Daniels for position (which should be good for his production too, no?).

Having more picks simply to have them isn't wise. Making the most of those you do is.

This is the common mantra around here, but I think we'd both acknowledge that Draft Picks are, in large part, a crap shoot. If that's the case you'd always rather have more picks than fewer, as the more picks you have increases the likelihood of hitting gold. Either the team is good at evaluating players or it isn't. Meaning we're either X% of our picks will remain with the team or X-Y% of our picks will remain in the team. In either case, so long as X (or X-Y) is not 0, it's better to have more picks. Right? There isn't a believable scenario you can construct where a team is better off with fewer picks, all things equal.

[Dallsux]

Because I'm stupid .

I fear the real value in Briggs is the team thinks Washington may not come fully back, in which case, Briggs is the only move we can make.

I agree that he is a complimentary LB. Up until recently, Lance Briggs wasn't a name most people (or should I say, your average fan) was familiar with. Now, EVERYONE knows who he is. Some people want him, others don't, but until the Redskins were talking to the Bears about him, NO ONE was talking about him here. Now, Urlacher...Jason Taylor...Joey Porter...gamechangers. Even average fans know those names because they stand out. Lance Briggs, as far as I know, has never really stuck out like that in the Bears defense.

What I think is that if we end up with Briggs, he'll help seal up the LB corps, with "above average" players, but not necessarily one individual gamechanger (with the exception of Washington-cause I think he has that ability). Washington is no LaVar, by any means...and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Whatever they do tomorrow, I only hope it's the smart thing to do-the right thing to do, not just what looks good.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

You aren't paying attention if you think no other teams are talking to the Bears. Three others have already been confirmed as talking to them. Tampa's one, but, the Bears would have to give up even a little more for the extra value of No. 4. That you believe Briggs benefits from playing next to Uracher and the rest of that ridiculous is fine. I don't disagree. Where we might disagree is in how good our defense has been, and how it has certainly been better and on par with the Bears two of the last three years.

Our defense has added Fletcher, Smoot and Stoutmire to extend depth and plug the real obvious gaps we had last year. If Briggs were playing here, he'd be playing on a pretty talented defense. Weaker than the Bears up front, better than the Bears at backer and at at least interesting to discuss in the secondary.

As bad as we were last year, that's not probably what we are. We may not be Top 5 again, but, we probably won't be bottom 5 either unless everyone gets hurt.

whered you read about tampa? i hadnt heard that, if you have a link please post. thx.

[Dallsux]

whered you read about tampa? i hadnt heard that, if you have a link please post. thx.

I had seen recently that the Bills were also talking to the Bears about Briggs. I saw that on ESPNews within the last couple of weeks.

[Morneblade]

Trading down only becomes possible if something strange happens up top. The Vikings won't move up a few spots for Quinn because they KNOW we aren't taking him, and, if Peterson is there, the Vikings aren't, and the Falcons won't. If Peterson is gone, maybe, but otherwise, trading down is the least obvious, least certain thing we can do.

But, say we move down to nine for a third rounder.

The question remains. What's better, Briggs and a first, or No. 9 and a third. I think even there you know the answer. Now, can we move down from there, again and again? Yes.

Now, tell me how many picks do you envision making the roster. My guess is two with maybe two more on the practice squad. You want to get 10 picks to cut 6?

The D-Line, for example, has a pretty crowded set of players. You aren't going to take a lot of guys to cut Daniels and Wynn and Griffin and Salave'a -- though if he can't walk, maybe -- etc. You have room for a guy if he's great, but you're not going to have room for more than that. So, why take three guys when you know that going in?

Ok... We might have several players, but the problem is that alot of them are not very good. Or stay healthy. If we got a DE in the draft, either Wynn or Daneils will be cut. And I'd be happy to see either of them go. Neither have been effetive players since coming over. If we get a DT, Monty or Joe is gone, or headed to the practice squad (in the case of Monty, if we thing he still might be a marginal player). Although it might not be a bad idea to keep 5 DTs, because Griff has missed games in 6 of his 7 seasons, and Joe has missed games in the last 2 season. Neither one can be expected to get through all 16 games at this point. Actualy, if we could get decent players, Wynn, Daneils, Joe and Monty would be gone. So there is room for good players on the D-line. We have bodies, but not contibutors right now.