Suggest League-Wide Moratorium of Skins FO!!!

[Koolblue13]

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.

Niners are too. There were a few teams that got mention a little while ago on sirius.

[Koolblue13]

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.

It's also a last case cenerio I believe. I have a hard time beliving we are staying at 6 and unless something crazy happens, we are not holding the most demanding spot.

This thread is definitly not funny. It's just as annoying as the "I'm not going to be a fan if" comments or our FO is worse than blah blahs FO.

I'm such a fan, but my team sucks. Waaaa waaa waaa. Pull it together.

[ntotoro]

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.

I'm talking about trading out of our #6 to get more picks, not trading it for a player and a swap of one pick.

There are few, if any teams, who will trade us some picks to get our #6. People want to talk about "trade our #6 for a low #1, a #2 and a #3 or two," or whatever, but there's realistically no one who will want to do that. If rarely happens anymore.

[Skin Patrol]

I'm talking about trading out of our #6 to get more picks, not trading it for a player and a swap of one pick.

There are few, if any teams, who will trade us some picks to get our #6. People want to talk about "trade our #6 for a low #1, a #2 and a #3 or two," or whatever, but there's realistically no one who will want to do that. If rarely happens anymore.

I hope you eat crow tomorrow, as I honestly believe that trading down is our best (unavailable) option. I recognize the difficulty of getting those trades to happen. Once upon a time no one would have guessed that Lance Briggs could be a Washington Redskin, but here we are.

[lovellj]

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.

Frankly, no. This reeks of luxury over need again. Sure, Briggs could turn out fine. But it would mean we completely wasted our 2nd this year to get a player we plan to keep on the bench. And we'd be picking a player up on the only area of the defense where we have any discernable depth. That makes no sense. It also means we're taking a player at 31 that has many greater questions and much less potential than anyone we could get at 6. Does the fact that Briggs is a probowler mean that he's automatically a good pickup? What if we traded #6 for the Giants #20 and Shockey. Does that trade make sense too, simply because Shockey's a probowler?

[cakmoney61]

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

I said it was 70% facetious and 30% serious. It wasn't intended to be over-the-top hilarious. There's enough truth in it to keep it from being gut-wrenching funny.

Actually you clarified my point about being a fan. I wasn't saying I'm the biggest Redskins fan of all time. If I am, I need to get a life. How could I reasonably conclude that? You, me, or no one else can say one person is a bigger fan than someone else based on his or her reaction to wins and loses or how much Redskins merchandise a person has. Sorry for my lack of clarity oh great one. :notworthy

[Art]

Frankly, no. This reeks of luxury over need again. Sure, Briggs could turn out fine. But it would mean we completely wasted our 2nd this year to get a player we plan to keep on the bench. And we'd be picking a player up on the only area of the defense where we have any discernable depth. That makes no sense. It also means we're taking a player at 31 that has many greater questions and much less potential than anyone we could get at 6. Does the fact that Briggs is a probowler mean that he's automatically a good pickup? What if we traded #6 for the Giants #20 and Shockey. Does that trade make sense too, simply because Shockey's a probowler?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Cooley play the pass catching tight end role for us? Why would we trade for Shockey, who's had injury problems, at the same spot? Are you suggesting that Cooley is no better than Marshall at weakside or Rocky at weakside? Are you saying we have both pass catching tight end and weakside backer as certainly and capably filled? No, you obviously aren't, so, you can correct your statement that it's not a need, as it is a need.

And, some have said Branch could keep sliding. If he goes at No. 31, a guy who everyone says has all the potential in the world, would you think that's good or bad? Back when this first came up, we looked at No. 6 picks versus No. 31 picks. There's some good consistency in player at No. 31. There's a bit more upside, but also failure, at No. 6 all things considered.

[skinsn24]

Branch could keep sliding. If he goes at No. 31, a guy who everyone says has all the potential in the world, would you think that's good or bad? Back when this first came up, we looked at No. 6 picks versus No. 31 picks. There's some good consistency in player at No. 31. There's a bit more upside, but also failure, at No. 6 all things considered.

I dont see Branch reaching 31 personally, i think somone else will bite, and i think if the bears thought branch would be there at 31 they wouldnt trade up.:2cents:

As far sas your reply to the poster, Linebacker is the one spot, besides corner, where we seem to have enough talant for this year. Marshall proved he is a good player at WLB, at worst he is a on the better side of average and an upgrade over highway 57. Fletcher is an upgrade over Marshall at MLB and Washington is a probowler on the other side.

Behind all three of them we have a second year player who was apparently worth 2 second rounders to this same FO. HE is said to be able to play all 3 positions, so i dont consider LB an immiedate need and i think trading Marshal would defeat the entire purprose of the trade, as then our depth at LB gets no better. Not including Marshal or Rocky would at least build the LB depth.

[lovellj]

I dont see Branch reaching 31 personally, i think somone else will bite, and i think if the bears thought branch would be there at 31 they wouldnt trade up.:2cents:

As far sas your reply to the poster, Linebacker is the one spot, besides corner, where we seem to have enough talant for this year. Marshall proved he is a good player at WLB, at worst he is a on the better side of average and an upgrade over highway 57. Fletcher is an upgrade over Marshall at MLB and Washington is a probowler on the other side.

Behind all three of them we have a second year player who was apparently worth 2 second rounders to this same FO. HE is said to be able to play all 3 positions, so i dont consider LB an immiedate need and i think trading Marshal would defeat the entire purprose of the trade, as then our depth at LB gets no better. Not including Marshal or Rocky would at least build the LB depth.

That was my point. Art, normally I like your posts. But you're stating LB is a need when there's no indication it is. You're completely blowing off Rocky's potential at WLB and what Marshall did for us when he played there. If that constitutes a need, then we're a nightmare everywhere else on D.

2nd, you say that Branch could fall to 31. We'd have to make the trade long before that could be guaranteed, and even with him slipping I haven't seen anyone that believes he'll fall out of the top 25.

[Grinder]

This Briggs thing is threatening to become the latest example of how our team building philosophy is so baffling to me.

We invest too heavily in picks and money at the positions that are generally the easiest to fill.

We've done it at RB, 2nd WR, 3rd WR, LB, and safety.

*Comparatively speaking* these are "grow on trees" positions..."swing a dead cat and you'll hit one" positions. For some reason, we pay them like superstars.

And it seems to be at least 50/50 that we'll do it again with Briggs. Do Urlacher and the Bears DL come with him also? Thats the only way this works out for us.

This is the kind of trade you make only if you feel that person is the missing link between your team and the SuperBowl AND your due diligence reveals that person cannot be obtained in the draft.

Not if you are a 5-11 team with zero passrush and a high draft pick that could either be parlayed into more or invested in that elusive impact lineman.

Anyone else tired of taking other teams malcontents and making them rich? And throwing in prime draft choices on top?

We are becoming the ultimate "get out of jail free card" and tomorrow I'll be hoping that trend doesn't continue. Hopefully, many of you will also.

[skinsfanno9]

The question remains. What's better, Briggs and a first, or No. 9 and a third. I think even there you know the answer.

I'm taking the No. 9 and a third. We really do need a dominant Dlineman - the type you can usually only find at the top of the draft. If we had one of those, our extremely average lineman might start looking decent. This would also dramatically improve our secondary, as we might occasionally pressure the QB.

The only reason I wouldn't stay in the top 10 is because I thought that the top lineman really weren't that good. In that context, it makes sense to trade out of it entirely. Then you're in essence saying, "Yeah, our line will suck yet again, but perhaps the back 7 can make up the difference." But all things being equal, this is a bad bet. QBs under pressure make lots of mistakes. QBs who are just chillin back there eat us alive.

[skinsfanno9]

This Briggs thing is threatening to become the latest example of how our team building philosophy is so baffling to me.

We invest too heavily in picks and money at the positions that are generally the easiest to fill.

We've done it at RB, 2nd WR, 3rd WR, LB, and safety.

*Comparatively speaking* these are "grow on trees" positions..."swing a dead cat and you'll hit one" positions. For some reason, we pay them like superstars.

And it seems to be at least 50/50 that we'll do it again with Briggs. Do Urlacher and the Bears DL come with him also? Thats the only way this works out for us.

This is the kind of trade you make only if you feel that person is the missing link between your team and the SuperBowl AND your due diligence reveals that person cannot be obtained in the draft.

Not if you are a 5-11 team with zero passrush and a high draft pick that could either be parlayed into more or invested in that elusive impact lineman.

Anyone else tired of taking other teams malcontents and making them rich? And throwing in prime draft choices on top?

We are becoming the ultimate "get out of jail free card" and tomorrow I'll be hoping that trend doesn't continue. Hopefully, many of you will also.

:applause:

We really do need an impact lineman. They really make everyone else better.

[angel2]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Or maybe we could invent a patch that would cut off their pennis if they did something stupid.

[chaz13]

Let me start by saying I am not in favor of the Briggs deal. But if you were given a choice of a player that plays a position of need and has a 50% chance of becoming a really good player or a player at a position that really isn't a need but has a 100% chance of being a really good player and possibly an elite player, which would you choose? Most, I would think, would take the sure thing. That is L. Briggs. He will definitely be a good player for us. Maybe he won't be a perennial pro bowler, but then again maybe he will. We will pay through the nose either way. And we also get a late first round draft choice. When you look at it this way it makes sense to do the trade. JG likes to go into drafts being able to select the BPA instead of a need pick. What I really wonder is what the health of M. Washington is. Maybe there is more to his injury than we know. The F.O. and his physicians may think he will never be the same player again or maybe only has 1 or 2 good years left. If that is the case then this trade makes a lot more sense to me. I still believe a team should spend it's money on the D-line and CB. Safeties and LB should be less of a priority. I would take an all pro pass rusher over an all pro LB every time.

[turbodiesel#44]

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.

Totally with you on that one. Although, if CJ does fall to us @6, it would be foolish not to take that talent. Not gonna happen, though.

[Justsomeguy]

Yes a probowler is always a good pickup. Good players=good team.

All Hail!

[ouvan59]

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

But they don't know who we are talking with. If they really like Quinn they have to worry that Miami might trade with us and take him. It all depends on the Vikings' level of interest in him. They know we have been trying to trade out of that spot so they have to be a little worried about it.

[Peregrine]

Yeah....not. Where was the 30% serious? So for 3 years, we have no ability to get FAs(yet can loose them), no ability to trade(thus making us MORE desperate and giving better deals after 3 years), and who exactly is supposed to train us? One of the other super-talented FO teams who is willing to help a rival beat them?

Seriously, where was the serious part(though in your defense, nothing in the post was funny)?

[cakmoney61]

Yeah....not. Where was the 30% serious? So for 3 years, we have no ability to get FAs(yet can loose them), no ability to trade(thus making us MORE desperate and giving better deals after 3 years), and who exactly is supposed to train us? One of the other super-talented FO teams who is willing to help a rival beat them?

Seriously, where was the serious part(though in your defense, nothing in the post was funny)?

Where did I say they couldn't get FAs? I said they can't make deals with other teams. What makes it serious is the fact that we aren't good when it comes to acquiring personnel without giving up too much...forget it--you're right.