No announcement yet.

Redskins offer No. 6 overall pick for Briggs

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • i really wish the bears would take this trade, it offers them so many options!!


    • Originally posted by bsaza2358 View Post
      My understanding was that Washington was best cut out to be a WILL, where he could attack, but I could very well be wrong. I think Briggs' fit in this scheme is not ideal, and I think it is a bad idea.
      Just catching up a bit on some previous posts -

      Washington was a former collegiate defensive end that made the transition to OLB with the Colts. When he was a free agent a few years ago, several 3-4 teams gave long consideration to him as a rush backer, but Snyder jumped in. One of the reasons he liked coming here was the ability to rush more, which I believe statistically declined last year due to a myriad of concerns.

      Briggs fit isn't bad. People seem to forget that Gregg Williams actually ran a cover-2 variant. From the best of my understanding, as I wasn't too focused on football this fall/winter, the main changes were in regards to safety responsibilities.


      • Overall, I think I was a bit hasty with my initial reaction to the deal, relative from the Skins side. My Bears feeling hasn't really changed - all in all, it's the "worst case" scenario, as the Bears would prefer to keep Lance, but if Lance wants out and if JA is willing to go that route, then moving up makes sense.

        I'm coming around to the trade on the Skins side for a variety of factors. Trade value isn't that big of an issue for me, as my original concern was an overload on LB's. To note, trade value isn't that big an issue again simply because of the requirements involved with franchising a player, and furthermore, an individual that many view to be of a Pro Bowl caliber. So why am I coming around? I still think it's an overload on LB's ... but

        a) Redskins main needs entering the offseason arguably was an interior pass rusher and a base end, with secondary focus placed on a pass rushing end.

        b) If the Redskins don't trust Lemar Marshall and Rocky McIntosh enough, then that forces Marcus Washington into coverage more, as the coaches trust him.

        c) If they add Briggs, though, Washington is allowed to pass rush more.

        d) PFT keeps noting the whole "3 LB's" issue, but that's a bit overrated. Briggs would be a 3-down backer, with Fletcher-Baker coming out in dime packages, as he's arguably lost a step.

        e) Redskins feel comfortable with

        1) Kedric Golston as a pass rusher - I know they were high on him, but I personally was still somewhat leery.

        2) The 2nd tier DL talent being able to make an impact sooner than later

        3) Secondary depth being able to be externally addressed and/or Shawn Springs restructuring to stay.

        4) Andre Carter continuing his solid end of season stretch and manifesting itself into a consistent edge pressure guy that would match well with Marcus Washington.

        5) To go along with 2, overall DL depth from either guys stepping up or somehow adding pieces.

        f) Trading down from 31 is also very possible. At that point in the draft, there will likely be several players that some teams have graded higher, which would allow Washington to move into better positioning and potentially add a pick to address CB/DL depth.

        Overall, I still don't like the deal, but in retrospect, I guess I don't dislike it. There's been indications of front office changes happening in Washington, relative to power, and part of it may, and this is just a rumor, deal with coaches unhappiness in the scouting decision to pursue Rocky McIntosh last year, as it was rumored to be a mixed decision. That being said. I personally think you give Rocky or Lemar the chance at weakside, and I think both could do the job more than fine. It isn't an issue of the talent available at 6, as it always made more sense for Washington to deal down, but rather the potential options at 6 increasing as draft day gets closer. I mean, for example, maybe Atlanta decided on draft day to hop over Minnesota, and then maybe some team decided they needed to move up for a player falling at 8 ... Washington would recoup a lot of picks and address a lot of key depth needs (yes, I know, the actual possibility of multiple trades happening isn't that high, but it is a hypothetical and remember 2002 and the Skins excellent draft maneuvering that year.)

        On a side note, the Redskins can handle the monetary aspects, as they've cleared up the money for it.


        • Folks this trade isn't dead...far from it. What Angelo is doing is very business savy. Why? ...well do you ever take the initial offer when working a deal? If the Redskins initial offer was the 6th for Briggs and the 31st, was that their low ball offer or their best offer? I expect the Bears to make a counter offer this week because it doesn't seem like the initial proposal of "Briggs and 31 for 6" was a take it or leave deal because there was no time limit on the offer.



   Clark Judge - Sorry Briggs

            A source close to Washington owner Daniel Snyder on Tuesday denied the club is close to making a deal for Chicago linebacker Lance Briggs.

            "Not true," he said.

            Reports indicated that Washington is willing to switch first-round positions with Chicago -- sacrificing the sixth overall pick for the 31st -- to gain Briggs, the Bears' unhappy franchise player. But that's not true, either, said the source.

            "That's just Drew talking," he said.

            Drew is Drew Rosenhaus, the agent for Briggs, and it was he who escorted the Bears' linebacker to a table Monday night where Snyder was dining at the annual NFL owners' meetings. Also there, according to others, were Washington's vice president of football operations Vinny Cerrato and Baltimore owner Steve Bischiotti.

            Anyway, the source said, Rosenhaus said something about how much Briggs could do for the Redskins and suggested Snyder make a deal for him. Snyder responded by saying the Redskins and Bears should switch first-round positions to gain Briggs.

            "It was innocent and meant as a joke," said the source, "but it's taken off."

            Briggs last month was tagged as the Bears' franchise player, a move that prevented him from becoming an unrestricted free agent and that angered him so much he threatened not to play this season. That changed this week when Rosenhaus said Briggs would stay out the first 10 games of the season, then report for the last six to earn another year's credit.

            That ploy hasn't worked in the past. When wide receiver Keenan McCardell attempted it in 2004, the Tampa Bay Bucs let him sit until trading him in mid-season to San Diego.

            The Bears have insisted they will not act on Briggs' demands and that they expect him to play for them this season. In fact, team president Ted Phillips this week told reporters in Phoenix that Briggs turned down a lucrative extension last year and that the Bears notified him and Rosenhaus that they would consider protecting Briggs with a franchise tag if he remained unsigned.



              Redskins Quiet On Briggs 'Rumors'
              Agent Says Trade Has Been Discussed

              By Howard Bryant and Mark Maske
              Washington Post Staff Writers
              Wednesday, March 28, 2007; Page E01

              The agent for Lance Briggs, a two-time Pro Bowl linebacker for the Chicago Bears, said yesterday that the Washington Redskins have made an offer for his client, but team officials dismissed the possibility as "rumors."

              "Right now, it's just a bunch of stuff that got thrown around" Monday, said Redskins Coach Joe Gibbs, interviewed yesterday at the NFL owners meetings in Phoenix. "Just a bunch of rumors."

              Said Vice President of Football Operations Vinny Cerrato, "We don't comment on rumors."

              Briggs's agent, Drew Rosenhaus, confirmed published reports stating that the Redskins have offered to switch places with the Bears in the first round of next month's draft, exchanging the sixth pick for the 31st, to acquire Briggs.


              • I'm really starting to wonder if the package being reported isn't what's being offered (a swap of picks in the first round), and hence, why the Skins side can go on about how they didn't offer the swap and don't wish to discuss rumors, and why the Bears side can be talking about taking the Redskins offer under consideration. Of course, that begs the question of, what else could the Skins be offering?

                It was also noted in the Redskins Insider blog that the sources they had talked to seemed skeptical (see and look for a post by Cindy).

                It'll definitely be interesting to see how it all plays out ... and I think I'd have a good hoot at the end of the day if all this ended up with ... nothing but a bunch of talk amongst teams that goes on at this time of year. It is a quiet time in the draft process, and this has definitely stirred the pot.


                • Originally posted by njx9
                  so the real, unasked question in all of this is:

                  how will the broncos somehow work themselves into this trade?
                  And the plot thickens...


                  • Hmm, a lot of reports on the Redskins and Briggs having agreed to a contract.

                    It's been reported on DC radio stations, and


                    20 million guaranteed and 7.5 mil per year? Intriguing. Too lazy to look it up, but I think that was a little less than Adalius got?


                    • Just plain unbelievable... Way to stunt your top draft pick from 2006, Redskins! Might as well trade Macintosh because he's not going to play...

                      I am "America's Poster"...


                      • So its official?


                        • The only thing official right now is that the Redskins have an agreement with Briggs on a multi-year contract with $20mm guaranteed. They have also offered Chicago the #6 overall pick for Briggs and the #31 overall pick.

                          I am "America's Poster"...


                          • Originally posted by 49ersfan_87 View Post
                            So its official?
                            No. The Bears haven't decided to trade Briggs yet. Its just that the trade would be contingent on the Redskins signing Briggs to a contract extension and the articles says the terms of hte contract are drawn up. The ball is in the Bear's court now.

                            How ridiculous would it be if the Redskins just signed Briggs to an offer and the Bears decided not to match? Cha-ching!


                            • Originally posted by bsaza2358 View Post
                              Just plain unbelievable... Way to stunt your top draft pick from 2006, Redskins! Might as well trade Macintosh because he's not going to play...
                              Not that I'm defending the move at all, as I've noted my unease with it in the past posts of this thread, but it's been reported/rumored in a lot of places that the coaches were disappointed in Rocky McIntosh's play last year and they don't believe that he's ready to start. My bigger beef at LB really would still be shafting Lemar Marshall, who played solid 2 years ago at MIKE, struggled last year, but likely would be a capable-solid weakside starter.

                              It is interesting to note that in Mark Maske's blog, there's talk that the Redskins are contemplating moving up at the same time (how, I don't know). Albeit, that could be Joe Gibbs trying to give some misdirection (although it could also explain why the Redskins came out in full force that day at the Tech pro day).


                              • As a more rational fan, I believe in giving your first day picks and carryover players who have produced the time to develop and grow within your system. You don't pull players for one mistake. You let them play through and correct the behavior in game and during practice. You build teams with the draft, not through free agency. That is my opinion.

                                On a related note, I'm not thrilled about all the FA acquisitions the Eagles have made. I'm worried a little about team unity and the franchise overpaying players.

                                I am "America's Poster"...



                                Debug Information