The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

[quote="Jake"]Thank you Chicago.

[quote="John Clayton"]Bears say 'No' to Briggs dealposted: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 |

What scares me is that Danny may up the ante to get what he wants. There is no telling what he will throw into the deal

Or the trade won't happen at all

I can live with that

This should end this post

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/stor ... LHeadlines

How does that end anything....we all knew all of that info

LOSTHOG wrote:http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20070328-120127-6167r.htm

That's reassuring ... I've said from the outset that I thought this was purely speculation, I still don't think it will advance beyond that.

Fios wrote:

LOSTHOG wrote:http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20070328-120127-6167r.htm

That's reassuring ... I've said from the outset that I thought this was purely speculation, I still don't think it will advance beyond that.

Yes, this is definitely reassuring. I think many of us deep down felt that this wouldn't go through but one can never be too sure.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

Fios wrote:

LOSTHOG wrote:http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20070328-120127-6167r.htm

That's reassuring ... I've said from the outset that I thought this was purely speculation, I still don't think it will advance beyond that.

I think many of us deep down felt that this wouldn't go through but one can never be too sure.

Not based on what I've seen, I have never seen a front office so thoroughly ripped for a trade that hasn't even moved beyond the realm of potential.

Fios wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

Fios wrote:

LOSTHOG wrote:http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20070328-120127-6167r.htm

That's reassuring ... I've said from the outset that I thought this was purely speculation, I still don't think it will advance beyond that.

I think many of us deep down felt that this wouldn't go through but one can never be too sure.

Not based on what I've seen, I have never seen a front office so thoroughly ripped for a trade that hasn't even moved beyond the realm of potential.

Early yesterday I said that I had my doubts that it'd happen but even the notion of it disgusted me.

I think people flipped out because it was very real. This scenario is classic Redskin bull crap.

1. Player we don't need.
2. Squandering picks.
3. Lopsided trade being on the short end of the stick.
4. Not seeming to know the value of their pick.

Very few people wanted this trade to happen but many said they wouldn't be shocked and there's a reason for that. We've done it before.

I think what got me going is that it seems that we're doing great things. We're moving in moderation and getting what we need and not what we want. We're behind the ball with the draft but we have the ability to recoup and come out strong. The possibility of pissing that away just really got to me.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

Fios wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

Fios wrote:

LOSTHOG wrote:http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20070328-120127-6167r.htm

That's reassuring ... I've said from the outset that I thought this was purely speculation, I still don't think it will advance beyond that.

I think many of us deep down felt that this wouldn't go through but one can never be too sure.

Not based on what I've seen, I have never seen a front office so thoroughly ripped for a trade that hasn't even moved beyond the realm of potential.

Early yesterday I said that I had my doubts that it'd happen but even the notion of it disgusted me.

I think people flipped out because it was very real. This scenario is classic Redskin bull crap.

1. Player we don't need.
2. Squandering picks.
3. Lopsided trade being on the short end of the stick.
4. Not seeming to know the value of their pick.

Very few people wanted this trade to happen but many said they wouldn't be shocked and there's a reason for that. We've done it before.

I love how we've established this notion of a criminally incompetent F.O. that "always" makes bad decisions and that no one is ever forced to acknowledge the good decisions. It's intellectually lazy and disingenuous. I agree that bad decisions have been made but I get so tired of the overwhelming negativity on this site. Listen, I want a GM hired and Cerrato fired as much as anyone on this site but you'd think the Redskins have no good players at all based on the reactions here. I think we should strive to have intelligent football discussion here and while that most certainly includes being critical of bad decisions, it also includes acknowledging the good ones.

Fios wrote:Not based on what I've seen, I have never seen a front office so thoroughly ripped for a trade that hasn't even moved beyond the realm of potential.

No kidding. Last week we were bashing the F/O because there was some ridicules report that we were talking to the Raiders about acquiring their 1st overall pick so we could draft J. Russell.

OF COURSE THE SKINS ARE GOING TO BE TALKING TO OTHERS ABOUT POTENTIAL TRADES! THEY'D BE STUPID NOT TO!

Fios wrote:I love how we've established this notion of a criminally incompetent F.O. that "always" makes bad decisions and that no one is ever forced to acknowledge the good decisions. It's intellectually lazy and disingenuous. I agree that bad decisions have been made but I get so tired of the overwhelming negativity on this site. Listen, I want a GM hired and Cerrato fired as much as anyone on this site but you'd think the Redskins have no good players at all based on the reactions here. I think we should strive to have intelligent football discussion here and while that most certainly includes being critical of bad decisions, it also includes acknowledging the good ones.

AMEN! Thank you, Fios!

Fios wrote:I love how we've established this notion of a criminally incompetent F.O. that "always" makes bad decisions and that no one is ever forced to acknowledge the good decisions. It's intellectually lazy and disingenuous. I agree that bad decisions have been made but I get so tired of the overwhelming negativity on this site. Listen, I want a GM hired and Cerrato fired as much as anyone on this site but you'd think the Redskins have no good players at all based on the reactions here. I think we should strive to have intelligent football discussion here and while that most certainly includes being critical of bad decisions, it also includes acknowledging the good ones.

I don't like the negativity either... I was one of the worst offenders early this off season. I can only speak for me but aside from 2005 there's been nothing to be positive about during the season. There's always that big splash F/A signing that's going to turn us into champs but it never pans out. It's not like we've been coming short of the goal, most of the time we're not even in contention.

If the negativity is to cease, this team will need to win CONSISTENTLY! I'm not talking about a 4 game win streak, I mean multiple .500+ seasons with apparent signs of progress and movement towards a goal.

I'm actually excited for this upcoming seasons, especially if the draft pans out right.

Fios wrote: Listen, I want a GM hired and Cerrato fired as much as anyone on this site but you'd think the Redskins have no good players at all based on the reactions here. I think we should strive to have intelligent football discussion here and while that most certainly includes being critical of bad decisions, it also includes acknowledging the good ones.

I think part of the issue is that they draw attention to themselves. The huge salaries even though they don't see the money attract attention. When your bad signings garner more attention than your good signings who do you have to blame? Lets look at 2006 for example.

We had a bad year in 2006. We have some terrific players acquired via F/A that had mediocre years (not their fault) such as Moss, Marcus and Springs.

So then you have AA and B. Lloyd ( I think he'll shine next year) who come in and do diddly squat for whatever reason. If we had a good year and B. and AA did bad, the hate would be more subdued. But when the season is bad people are looking for answers.

I think people were disappointed because they thought 2005 was a turning point and the team just collapsed. I thoroughly enjoyed the 2005 season, it was by far the best I've experienced. 1992 doesn't count cus I was too young to understand. But one year IMO DOES NOT erase the years and year and years of disappointment and mediocrity. It's hard to not look at this team and think negative because that's mostly they've delivered to me during my tenure.

Even still, with Gibbs and this off season I'm looking forward to the upcoming season.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:
If the negativity is to cease, this team will need to win CONSISTENTLY! I'm not talking about a 4 game win streak, I mean multiple .500+ seasons with apparent signs of progress and movement towards a goal.

Two winning seasons in a row! Wouldn't that be nice! Can't remember the last time this team did that.

I'm actually excited for this upcoming seasons, especially if the draft pans out right.

Assuming the coaches let our first-rounder play significant time this season....

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I think people were disappointed because they thought 2005 was a turning point and the team just collapsed. I thoroughly enjoyed the 2005 season, it was by far the best I've experienced. 1992 doesn't count cus I was too young to understand. But one year IMO DOES NOT erase the years and year and years of disappointment and mediocrity. It's hard to not look at this team and think negative because that's mostly they've delivered to me during my tenure.

Chris, I hear ya, brother. But let's not forget about some extenuating circumstances in 2006; injuries on both sides of the ball, #8 benched, #17 thrown in there without having the opportunity of working with the starting team, and 1st year in Saunders offense. 2006 was a fork in the road, so to speak. I think there is no question that we will be much improved this coming year regardless of what happens this offseason. 2005 gave us a taste and we are hungry for more. I think 2006 was the turning point.

I promise you, there is no man on the planet more determined to turn things around than Joe Gibbs.

Guys im sure alot has been hashed over about this valid trade rumor..hers my take
God knows I havent understood everything the FO has done in the past but this is what I get out of this
1. LB play last year was horrific across the board.Lemar took steps back and washington was damged goods lst yr
2. MW had a major surgey recently(i think hip) and Macintosh had knee surgery last I looked that is not like getting your tonsils removed ..there legit ? at LB again this year

3. we arnt enamored with the available picks at 6.....AC came on late in the year but hes terrible at point of attack on the run...Gaines adams is a small quick end....Do we really want two DE's that play the run like an NHL defenseman skates back on an oncoming rush

4. Branch --hes falling and rightfully so...His tapes are mediocore at best
5. Jamal anderson didnt woo anyone
6 ,,If I told you we could trade the 6 pick--most likely Adams at this point
For a proven Pro Bowl caliber LB in Briggs AND Jarvis moss(late 20 projection) or anyother DE that falls to 31 ..you would say no???????

7. If its such a bad trade ....Why havent the bears said yes....because its an even deal slightly tilted in OUR FAVOR....
8. at the end of day were both paying huge money to someone if this deals happen.....except were putting our money in a 26yrold PROVEN PRO BOWLER and there putting there money in small pass rushing end who has never played a down.....And oh yeah were getting the 31st overall as well....
9. If we keep the pick can any of us say we got better without a shadow of doubt?????of course not
if we make the trade ...were getting better ..because anyone that adds Briggs gets better ...period..PLUS WE GET 31ST OV

10--Briggs a product of bears scheme???.......lol that horsesht!..Does Wilbur Marshall ring a bell guys...Cooke Gibbs etc got destroyed for trading 2 1's I belive for Wilbur.......they said "hes a product of Buddy Ryans 46 Scheme".....WRONG...he was a STALWART for us...Was CP a product of shannahan's offense???NOPE....Hes a great back anywhere anytime...

Thats it for me ..just my opionion guys ...

That deal is in our favor I pray it happens.

SkinsFreak wrote: injuries on both sides of the ball

Something you cannot avoid. One issue that we had was depth. I believe that is due to our lack of using the draft effectively.

SkinsFreak wrote: #8 benched,

I agreed that he should start the season but I felt he needed to be benched earlier than he was.

SkinsFreak wrote: #17 thrown in there without having the opportunity of working with the starting team,

He played great.

SkinsFreak wrote: and 1st year in Saunders offense. 2006 was a fork in the road, so to speak.

Which usually takes 2-3 years to get going strong.

SkinsFreak wrote:I think there is no question that we will be much improved this coming year regardless of what happens this offseason.

I should have realized when he got the new offense that we weren't going to do but so good. Gibbs was thinking long term by bringing Saunders in. We all had dreams of superbowl but Gibbs was two steps ahead.

2006 = 1 step back but 2 steps forward.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I should have realized when he got the new offense that we weren't going to do but so good. Gibbs was thinking long term by bringing Saunders in.

If Gibbs was thinking long-term, then why did he start Brunell, when Campbell was clearly the QB of the future? Gibbs was thinking "Win Now", just like all of us. It just didn't work out like that.

We all had dreams of superbowl but Gibbs was two steps ahead.

2006 = 1 step back but 2 steps forward.

Remains to be seen. We've certainly had the step back, but we'll only know about the two steps forward come the regular season.

Mursilis wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I should have realized when he got the new offense that we weren't going to do but so good. Gibbs was thinking long term by bringing Saunders in.

If Gibbs was thinking long-term, then why did he start Brunell, when Campbell was clearly the QB of the future? Gibbs was thinking "Win Now", just like all of us. It just didn't work out like that.

Everyone was talking Super Bowl and Brunell was good the prior year until late when he went gimpy. If we could have made a Super Bowl run with Brunell that would have been worth delaying Campbell starting a year. And actually if Brunell played a little better and the D had been suffocating like the prior year Super Bowl was a possibility, particularly in the weaker NFC.

On the flip side, maybe he didn't feel Campbell was ready, particularly in a situation where maybe if we tanked with the high expectations in the season he would have been blamed and his confidence shot. Can you imagine if Campbell were now in a position of having been treated like AA?

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote: injuries on both sides of the ball

Something you cannot avoid. One issue that we had was depth. I believe that is due to our lack of using the draft effectively.

We had a ton of injuries on defense alone last year; Washington, Springs, Griffin, Salave'a, Wynn, Danials, K. Carter... just to name a few. That's not normal. The roster only allows for 53 players. This isn't college where you can have 14 safeties on the roster or 128 players on the sidelines. I agree that you can't avoid some injuries and depth is important, but man, we lost like half the defense last year. Healthy players go a long way in this game.

Gibbs only wants Briggs cus he got of PRAM for him.





POT = STIRRED

It seems they look for good special team players for backups. This is good but we also need good backups. It seems to me we had depth but they were there mostly for special teams. You think?

I'll be honest here. Since first hearing of this news, I've been on the fence. But the more I think about it, the more I like this trade.

The most important unit on defense is the linebackers. They are run stuffers, pass defenders, blitzers and are vital in defending the West Coast offense, something Philly runs. If you look at the recent history of great defenses, the one common denominator in all of them are stud LB's.

Washington, Fletcher & Briggs? That sounds sweet. Throw in a DT or a DE with the 31st pick, and there you go. As far as Rocky and Marshall are concerned, I think there's still a place for them. Williams is notorious for player rotation and keeping fresh legs in the game at all times. Additionally, different packages require different personnel; i.e. LaVar would play on 1st and 2nd downs and come out on third or passing downs.

Nobody knows what will happen, but I wouldn't be disappointed to see this trade go down.