ESPN Chat with Todd McShay

[Griff]

Here is the only Redskins question so far:

Josh (Plano Texas): If the Bears trade Briggs to Washington will they still try and trade out of the first round? Who would they go after then?

Todd McShay : (1:16 PM ET ) If they deal Briggs, it better be for a first-round pick, which would give them a chance to draft one of the top LBs, higher than No. 31. The trouble with the Washington deal is moving up to No. 6 is actually too high, because there's not an LB worth drafting there. And if they can't do a second deal to move back, they're stuck paying an awful lot of money to a good player, but at a position that isn't as important as filling the OLB void.

Chad (Savannah, GA): Why is true that the rich get richer in the NFL? The Saints and Pats both have a decent amount of picks in the draft and seem to be in the best postion to make a SB run with some help in this draft.

Steve Muench: (1:43 PM ET ) Tjose organiztions aren't leveraging their future for one pick or a couple of picks like say Washington who can;t balme anyoone but itself for getting into this situation.

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=15518

[Stew]

It seems like Chicago has painted themselves in a corner with this Briggs problem. He doesnt want to be a Bear, and I think as time goes by, they are going to get less and less for Briggs. Now the Bears are somewhat depending on the Redskins to take Briggs off of their hands, I hope we snub them. The Bears FO had their chance, they wanted to bad mouth us to the media eventhough we didnt leak anything, Briggs agent did. Whatever, the Bears would be lucky for us to deal with them again, i hope we ignore them.

[Art]

The thing I can't understand about the Briggs deal for the Bears is it makes no sense for them to do it. They don't want No. 6. Maybe Okoye to replace Tank or maybe Quinn I suppose, but to do it means they get weak at weakside backer. I understand them asking for Rocky. I would hate to see us give him up in this and think we would get the far worse end of the deal if we give up anything more to them, barring them likewise returning the favor.

Gibbs, during the presser, mentioned Mark Anderson, just not by name. He mentioned the fifth round rookie who had like 14 sacks or something. I don't think that's coincidence. Maybe I'm a dreamer here, but, I COULD see Briggs going through for Rocky if they add Anderson. Then they can have a replacement for Briggs, and take DT or QB and come out looking pretty good without really diminishing their defensive line.

We'd acquire a young pass rush end and improve at backer with a pick to boot. The problem is, though Rocky went earlier, Anderson probably has more true value for having a better rookie year, so, it's unlikely they'd do that though it makes MORE sense than not doing it from a fit standpoint.

[Griff]

Mark Anderson, that would make it more interesting.

[GhostofAlvinWalton]

Maybe I'm a dreamer here, but, I COULD see Briggs going through for Rocky if they add Anderson.

If that did happen, I would reconsider killing myself upon confirmation of the "Briggs trade".

.

[Stew]

I COULD see Briggs going through for Rocky if they add Anderson.

If they wanted to expand the trade, (we give them Rocky, they give us Anderson) I would be open to the idea, but any deal with Chicago at this point would have to benefit us. I hope we have had better offers since then and that we dont even entertain anythign Chicago is saying anymore.

[fwo40]

The thing I can't understand about the Briggs deal for the Bears is it makes no sense for them to do it. They don't want No. 6. Maybe Okoye to replace Tank or maybe Quinn I suppose, but to do it means they get weak at weakside backer. I understand them asking for Rocky. I would hate to see us give him up in this and think we would get the far worse end of the deal if we give up anything more to them, barring them likewise returning the favor.

Gibbs, during the presser, mentioned Mark Anderson, just not by name. He mentioned the fifth round rookie who had like 14 sacks or something. I don't think that's coincidence. Maybe I'm a dreamer here, but, I COULD see Briggs going through for Rocky if they add Anderson. Then they can have a replacement for Briggs, and take DT or QB and come out looking pretty good without really diminishing their defensive line.

We'd acquire a young pass rush end and improve at backer with a pick to boot. The problem is, though Rocky went earlier, Anderson probably has more true value for having a better rookie year, so, it's unlikely they'd do that though it makes MORE sense than not doing it from a fit standpoint.

I think you mentioned this once before and my reaction was the same then as it would be now.....IF they were stupid enough to throw in Mark Anderson for Rocky/6th I would do this thing in a hearbeat.

But I think it is just wishful thinking unfortunately......which makes me think I would hate the Briggs deal as is...

[BKSkinsFan]

You are still in love with that Mark Anderson idea huh Art? You've mentioned that ever since the Briggs news broke. If this ends up happening, I then can only assume that you are involved with Gibbs in the personnel decision making lol. This scenario would make the whole deal much easier to swallow, I just doubt da Bears would be open to it.

[Fan since a Fetus]

If they want to throw in Anderson as well....then I am for it! That would be great!

[Phannman66]

If the Bears threw Mark Anderson into the deal, I would GLADLY give them Rocky...