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

The Post is reporting the Bears will counter offer and ask for either Rocky or Lemar...if its Rocky then NO, but if it's lemar I would say give us Briggs, 31overall, and a 3rd for 6th overall and Lemar we can't just give lemar away he's at least worth a 3rd

funbuncher wrote:2) He is a GM/President, whose personnel decisions are initiated by the whim of an agent.

A week later, he told foxsports.com, "I've played my last snap for them. I'll never play another down for Chicago again," and basically said the same thing in an interview with ESPN.

Angelo believes Briggs really feels that way, isn't being put up to it by Rosenhaus.

"When somebody speaks, I have to take it as that's what they feel," Angelo said. "I'm not going to characterize Lance as a puppet."

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6630358

Gibbs4Life wrote:The Post is reporting the Bears will counter offer and ask for either Rocky or Lemar...if its Rocky then NO, but if it's lemar I would say give us Briggs, 31overall, and a 3rd for 6th overall and Lemar we can't just give lemar away he's at least worth a 3rd

I don't mind the sound of that. Lemar is in the last year of his contract, was originally signed by Tampa as an undrafted rookie free agent, and I'm not sure if the Skins would give him a new contract next year.

I absolutely do not want to part with Rocky. Even though he was slow to pick up the system, I still think he has a decent chance to become a good player. He is worth keeping and developing.

SkinsFreak wrote:

Gibbs4Life wrote:The Post is reporting the Bears will counter offer and ask for either Rocky or Lemar...if its Rocky then NO, but if it's lemar I would say give us Briggs, 31overall, and a 3rd for 6th overall and Lemar we can't just give lemar away he's at least worth a 3rd

I don't mind the sound of that. Lemar is in the last year of his contract, was originally signed by Tampa as an undrafted rookie free agent, and I'm not sure if the Skins would give him a new contract next year.

I absolutely do not want to part with Rocky. Even though he was slow to pick up the system, I still think he has a decent chance to become a good player. He is worth keeping and developing.

Good post, I'm with you. I think having Rocky as our #4 makes him a vital player in a rotating GW D. I'd like to keep Marshall this year but as you say he's probably short term anyway if he can make the deal work.

I saw the point in the Post the deal is better for Chicago as is, it's mentioned above too. I found that to be a scratcher, everything I've seen says the reverse. It would be nice if they could have explained that a little, but all I can say is it is the Post. What can you say, we are supposed to trust them, they are not to persuade us.

Agreed, Kazoo. And further, with regard to Rocky, he has been great on special teams, and Gibbs likes players who can contribute in that capacity. I seriously doubt Gibbs would even consider letting Rocky go. As Kazoo said, he would be a great 4th in the rotation, as we know Williams likes to do.

SkinsFreak wrote:Agreed, Kazoo. And further, with regard to Rocky, he has been great on special teams, and Gibbs likes players who can contribute in that capacity. I seriously doubt Gibbs would even consider letting Rocky go. As Kazoo said, he would be a great 4th in the rotation, as we know Williams likes to do.

Chicago's the team on the hot seat. They are in no position to keep upping their demands. I just want to say we've made a fair offer and we'll tweak, but I agree if they say the deal plus Rocky we invite them to continue to stew in their own personnel mess instead of bailing them out.

We need to give last years 2nd round pick a chance to play. We fired Dale Lindsay partly because of that oversight and it seems silly to abondon this plan so easily. On top of that, we have Lemar marshall as insurance. A LB who is a natural WLB to begin with, who has had over 100 tackles the past two years.

I think some fans are so used to Snyder going out and making the big splash every year (Deion Sanders, Portis, Moss, trade up for Campbell, trade for Coles and on and on) that you are addicted to the idea. It's a quick fix. Something exciting to talk about for a few weeks. BUT, it doesn't win games. We need to keep the 6th pick, give Mcintosh a chance to fill the WLB role and improve our team without another big mouth, big contract free agent.

fleetus wrote:We need to give last years 2nd round pick a chance to play. We fired Dale Lindsay partly because of that oversight and it seems silly to abondon this plan so easily. On top of that, we have Lemar marshall as insurance. A LB who is a natural WLB to begin with, who has had over 100 tackles the past two years.

I think some fans are so used to Snyder going out and making the big splash every year (Deion Sanders, Portis, Moss, trade up for Campbell, trade for Coles and on and on) that you are addicted to the idea. It's a quick fix. Something exciting to talk about for a few weeks. BUT, it doesn't win games. We need to keep the 6th pick, give Mcintosh a chance to fill the WLB role and improve our team without another big mouth, big contract free agent.

I don't see anyone arguing for a "splash." We have one side that says like you we have Rocky and depth already, let's focus on positions we need.

We have the other, I'm on, that says Briggs is an opportunity to pick up a quality player because of his battle with the Bears, and we want to keep Rocky to stay as #4, we use a monster LB corps to support ongoing effort to bolster the line and the secondary. I see this as no disrespect for Rocky, he is second year and would play all the time in GW's rotation and would gain experience at multiple LB positions, which is what he did in college.

Both approaches are valid and you and I differ on which we think is the optimal way to go, I just think it's more productive to write posts addressing the two actually existing sides then a position no one's arguing, that we just want a splash. The people including myself see Briggs as an opportunity and none of us have argued if he falls through to go find anohter splash. We've totally supported the teams tweak approach this offseason. But a tweak approach hopefully doens't mean ignore an unexpected opportunity.

KazooSkinsFan wrote: e have the other, I'm on, that says Briggs is an opportunity to pick up a quality player because of his battle with the Bears, and we want to keep Rocky to stay as #4, we use a monster LB corps to support ongoing effort to bolster the line and the secondary.

Last two years Marshall has 98 and 104 tackles, respectively. That's as the MLB, WLB is his natural position. He's been the QB of the defense for 2 years, knows GW's scheme better than anyone and has a chance to move back to his natural position at WLB and compete with Rocky. Whoever wins that job, or if they platoon will likely be a bright spot on the defense this year.

Last two years Briggs, in a different system, with Urlacher playing the middle and star studded DL in front of him has 109 and 130 tackles with 3 sacks and 4 INT's. Marshall, at the usually less blitzing position of MLB, has 3.5 sacks and 4 INT's during the same time without the great DL in front of him! So why do you think we need to pay Briggs 7+ mil a year AND give up our #6 pick so that we can sit Marshall and McIntosh on the bench? I fail to see what Briggs has done to warrant all the excitement. Apparently, so do the BEARS!

obivously our FO doesnt view Rocky and Marshall in the same regard as Briggs.. Marshall is a now 31 year old linebacker who did play well for us the last 2 years but slumped significantly towards the end of last year.. and i know this was because he was banged up but still he took a beating in the middle the last 2 years and clearly our FO doesnt feel comfortable with Rocky and Marshall at this point .. they see alot more of them than any of us.. Im still hopeful Rocky can be a good linebacker for us but just because we traded up to get him last year and make him a high 2nd round pick doesnt mean hes ready to be our WLB and doesnt mean hes gonna be great.. clearly the team isnt seeing in him what they would like or we would not make this push for Briggs.. as for the #6 pick there isnt anyone there we deem worthy of drafting so high..by moving down to #31 we are still going to get a potential starter we just wont be paying the huge contract for an unproven player

fleetus wrote:why do you think we need to pay Briggs 7+ mil a year AND give up our #6 pick so that we can sit Marshall and McIntosh on the bench?

We're not "giving up" our 6 pick for Briggs, we're giving up our 6 pick for the 31 pick and Briggs. A big part of our argument is there seems to be no one at the 6 pick worth the 6 pick unless someone drops. That we get the 31 pick is key to this, we still have a first round draft pick. You can't ignore that in making the argument.

Second, so you think if we get Briggs Rocky's sitting on the bench? Again, I just don't see it that way. A second year player will be able to get lots of time playing all 3 LB positions instead of starting at only one. I just can't describe that as having him "sit." Sorry. GW's a demon at playing a rotation, not just the starters.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

fleetus wrote:why do you think we need to pay Briggs 7+ mil a year AND give up our #6 pick so that we can sit Marshall and McIntosh on the bench?

We're not "giving up" our 6 pick for Briggs, we're giving up our 6 pick for the 31 pick and Briggs. A big part of our argument is there seems to be no one at the 6 pick worth the 6 pick unless someone drops. That we get the 31 pick is key to this, we still have a first round draft pick. You can't ignore that in making the argument.

Second, so you think if we get Briggs Rocky's sitting on the bench? Again, I just don't see it that way. A second year player will be able to get lots of time playing all 3 LB positions instead of starting at only one. I just can't describe that as having him "sit." Sorry. GW's a demon at playing a rotation, not just the starters.

The difference between a #6 and a #31 is equivalent to an everage 1st round pick. So if you're gonna try and split hairs, smoke on that one for a minute. It is exactly the same as trading away next years 1st round pick, SAME VALUE. Yikes!

If we used that #6 pick to trade down to #31, we would be asking the Bears for their 1st rounder next year. You make it sound like "aw shucks, it's just a quick hop and skip down to the #31 pick! No big deal." It is a big deal. So I ask you again, has LANCE BRIGGS done anything in his NFL career, to make you think he's worth that much value (#6 minus #31 = 1000 points = 16th overall selection) in addition to the FACT that we will have to pay him a big contract (he has already turned down 5 yrs - 35 mil) in addition to the fact that both Marshall and Rocky will be on the bench (no matter how many snaps you think Rocky will get in backup duty).

Briggs has less sacks than Lemar Marshall over the last 2 years.
Briggs wants 5 times more money than Marshall
Briggs has a handful more tackles than Marshall playing behind one of the best defensive lines in football
Briggs has never played in GW's scheme, MArshall knows it intimately.
Briggs has whined incessantly to the media
Is Briggs 5 million a year BETTER than Marshall + McIntosh?
If so, please explain why. If not, then we're done with this argument.

This is regarded by everyone who knows anything about the NFL as a deal the Bears should not accept. We made an "offer" and that player would be an addition to our LB position. Williams uses a lot of players and his defense will be more effective if the quality does not drop off no matter who is in there. The priority to stop the run and pressure the QB will remain - Williams understands that this D this year will be a huge step for him and I believe we will see that in our D this season.

It seems we are not all that excited about what we could be getting at 6 - if this deal does not work and I do not think it will we will most likely still be trying to do something with that 6 pick to get better on our D line. We need to get something for this pick and I do not think we will end up making the pick at 6 - we will either make a deal to go up or we will be trying to get more for it.

I just hope we do not give away any of next years picks.

fleetus wrote:Is Briggs 5 million a year BETTER than Marshall + McIntosh?
If so, please explain why. If not, then we're done with this argument.

The guy's been all-pro and he's 26. So, I'd say yes, getting him AND another late first round pick where we pick up two young players instead of one (presumably both on D) makes sense to me for that reason. We need to get younger, this gives us two younger players instead of one.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

fleetus wrote:Is Briggs 5 million a year BETTER than Marshall + McIntosh?
If so, please explain why. If not, then we're done with this argument.

The guy's been all-pro and he's 26. So, I'd say yes, getting him AND another late first round pick where we pick up two young players instead of one (presumably both on D) makes sense to me for that reason. We need to get younger, this gives us two younger players instead of one.

. We're not GETTING any picks. We are giving the value of a 1st round pick to the Bears. You sound like Vinny pleading his case to Danny. "All we gotta give up is the #6 and they'll give us the #31. That's nothing. Hell we've give up a few picks here or there every year. It'll be fun! We'll be on the front page of the Post again!"

Take a gander at how Scouts Inc. grades Briggs. Here's the overall rankings list for ALL LB's. Hmm.. Seems he grades out below Fletcher. 32nd overall LB on the list. Decent, sure. Worth 7+ mil a year?

Of course, Scouts, Inc. who is in the business of evaluating players every year, 365 days a year, from college through their pro careers, doesn't really know what they are talking about.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/features/scouting?position=30

He is an All-pro because he is a cog in a very good wheel. Mark Rypien was an MVP playing behind the Hogs and throwing to Monk, Clark and Sanders. You don't see him on any HOF ballots do you?

fleetus wrote:[Yawn. We're not GETTING any picks. We are giving the value of a 1st round pick to the Bears.

I said we get two young players instead of one. A #6 for Briggs (26) and a #31 (22?), that's two young players. What are you talking about we don't get any picks?

I'm not saying we get a #31 for a #6, I'm saying we get Briggs AND a #31 for a #6.

fleetus wrote:Mark Rypien was an MVP playing behind the Hogs and throwing to Monk, Clark and Sanders. You don't see him on any HOF ballots do you?

That's exactly right! And where would the experts at Scouts, Inc. have ranked Rypien? Pretty low, right? Yet Gibbs saw something in him, gave the guy a chance, and he takes us to the Super Bowl and earns the MVP title. Your analogy was counterintuitive.

BTW - Where do Marshall, Holdman and McIntosh rank on that list?

fleetus wrote: ... You sound like Vinny pleading his case to Danny. "All we gotta give up is the #6 and they'll give us the #31. That's nothing. Hell we've give up a few picks here or there every year. It'll be fun! We'll be on the front page of the Post again!"

How do you know this? If you do not know then you made it up? How much else do you "make up" to make your points here? hmmmn!

Take a gander at how Scouts Inc. grades Briggs. Here's the overall rankings list for ALL LB's. Hmm.. Seems he grades out below Fletcher. 32nd overall LB on the list.

Of course, Scouts, Inc. who is in the business of evaluating players every year, 365 days a year, from college through their pro careers, doesn't really know what they are talking about.

We already have Fletcher and he is at MLB, Briggs is a WLB! - besides I would not agree with their rating - Briggs was highly regarded by a lot of others last year.

Mark Rypien was an MVP playing behind the Hogs and throwing to Monk, Clark and Sanders. You don't see him on any HOF ballots do you?

I would agree - so a MVP rating in that case and many other examples means nothing!

Rypien was as good as the players around him, not by himself. That is how it is mostly - good players look better than they are when they have better talent around them.



I do not particularly want this guy - he does not sound like a good team player Fact is we tried to scam the Bears - we only did it to see if we could end up with 2 good players (hopefully on the 31st pick) - BUT, we will probably end up doing something else because the Bears D would be less effective without this guy, and I think even if they lose him they will want more in return and that is not the deal we are talking about here.

Ok, I just read some of the wires and I am now NOT cool with this deal. If we give them the #6 pick and Marshall or Golsten . That would be just plain stupid. If its just the 6th pick then go for it but we cant give up players too.

The Redskins would have to at least swap picks with the Bears, moving Chicago up to the sixth overall pick. Kirwin says he's heard rumblings that the Bears would be interested in taking Notre Dame QB Brady Quinn. Could the Sex Cannon have some serious competition? The swapping of picks, using the all holy draft points system, would equate to the 16th overall pick. Kirwin believes Briggs is worth more than that.

http://bears.aolsportsblog.com/2007/03/ ... n-chicago/

Did anyone else hear this?

fleetus wrote:Briggs has less sacks than Lemar Marshall over the last 2 years.
Briggs wants 5 times more money than Marshall
Briggs has a handful more tackles than Marshall playing behind one of the best defensive lines in football
Briggs has never played in GW's scheme, MArshall knows it intimately.
Briggs has whined incessantly to the media
Is Briggs 5 million a year BETTER than Marshall + McIntosh?
If so, please explain why. If not, then we're done with this argument.

How are these points so easily overlooked, especially considering Marshall can compete with Rocky for that position? We are all going to be sick if he goes to Chicago and becomes a stud.

The idea of creating 2 starters with the pick (Briggs + 31st) is great, and I'll admit, somewhat tempting, but again, had we actually PLANNED on signing another LB, then we could have gone after Adalius Thomas, then traded our 6th in for 2 more starters for a total of 3 instead of 2, plus the possibilty of creating some depth with later picks. (Denver was going to throw a boatload of picks at us when considering the Bly trade since he was valued as a 3rd rounder compared to Briggs as a 1st.)

Just saw as I type on NFL network that trade talks have stalled between the Skins and Bears!!!

funbuncher wrote:Just saw as I type on NFL network that trade talks have stalled between the Skins and Bears!!!

I'm sure they did. The Bears made a counter offer and the Skins said... " hahahahaha .... ya right, see ya later Mr. Angelo!" So now the Bears probably told the media the talks have stalled. Meanwhile, Angelo is talking to Lovie right now, saying... "uh-oh, now what do we do? "

Mursilis wrote:

1niksder wrote:

Mursilis wrote:This has been debated before, but is it McIntosh 'couldn't unseat' Holdman, or wasn't allowed to? We all know Williams is reluctant to play rookies, so we'll never know if McIntosh's lack of playing time was due to his abilities, or purely the pro-veteran bias of the coaching staff. Look how long we had to tolerate Brunell!

There was a guy that was drafted the same year as Rocky, it may have been a few rounds later but I'm pretty sure he qualifies as a rookie also. He started 12 games for Williams and the pro-veteran biased staff.

Golston? While what you say is true, the D-line doesn't have the same cerebral demands of linebacker. Rarely does a DT have to go into coverage. Plus, seems like the injury issues were worse on the line than the linebackers, but I don't remember who all was down how long - there were so many injuries last year.

Rogers played in 12 games his rookie season and started about half of them, Sean Taylor started more games than Golston his rookie year, and they both play a lot of coverage, and they weren't "forced in" due to injuries

fleetus wrote:The difference between a #6 and a #31 is equivalent to an everage 1st round pick. So if you're gonna try and split hairs, smoke on that one for a minute. It is exactly the same as trading away next years 1st round pick, SAME VALUE. Yikes!

Trading down from #6 to #31 is like giving up the #16 pick in this years draft. Next years first is only worth the value of a 2nd rounder this year. To trade for a fanchised tagged player the standard is two 1st rd picks (normally this years and next) the Skins have used the value difference between their pick and da Bears pick and found a way to put a offer on the table WITHOUT TRADING FUTURE PICKS (as Gibbs said he wouldn't). Trying to make it appear anyother way is just futile with the people on this board but it was a good effort.

fleetus wrote:If we used that #6 pick to trade down to #31, we would be asking the Bears for their 1st rounder next year. You make it sound like "aw shucks, it's just a quick hop and skip down to the #31 pick! No big deal." It is a big deal. So I ask you again, has LANCE BRIGGS done anything in his NFL career, to make you think he's worth that much value (#6 minus #31 = 1000 points = 16th overall selection) in addition to the FACT that we will have to pay him a big contract (he has already turned down 5 yrs - 35 mil) in addition to the fact that both Marshall and Rocky will be on the bench (no matter how many snaps you think Rocky will get in backup duty).

How do you keep getting next years picks into this debate they have nothing to do with this deal. It's really not a big deal when you figure the #6 pick will get about $14 million up front and has never played a down. Rocky may need more time behind Marshall, if McIntosh wins the spot Marshall can be the back up for both of them. That's called quality depth (something this team has been missing for so long some have forgotten what it is)

fleetus wrote:Briggs has less sacks than Lemar Marshall over the last 2 years.

Marshall played in the middle the last 2 years while Briggs played outside in a cover two yet you point out Marshall had a half sack more over two years .

fleetus wrote:Briggs wants 5 times more money than Marshall

Marshall was a undrafted free agent that will make $1M this year and will be a free agent next year, how do you know what he'll ask for. Dp you want to wait and see before looking for a replacement?

fleetus wrote:Briggs has a handful more tackles than Marshall playing behind one of the best defensive lines in football

They may be playing behind the same lline this year, did I miss your point?

fleetus wrote:Briggs has never played in GW's scheme, MArshall knows it intimately.

He had never played in Lovie's until he did Lemar would be the perfect LB to come off the bench, he could be inserted anywhere They don't even have to take one off the other guys out.

fleetus wrote:Briggs has whined incessantly to the media

Not to be out done by the banter in this thread

fleetus wrote:Is Briggs 5 million a year BETTER than Marshall + McIntosh?
If so, please explain why. If not, then we're done with this argument.

It's not so much that he is better, it's what the addition of Lance Briggs to the LB corp would do to the defense. LFB is just getting here, Washington and Marshall were banged up most of last year. If Rocky is 100% ready to go we still only Campbell as depth

I don't care one way or the other, that being said I still don't see this deal happening.

1. This isn't the FO we are use to (someone is actually thinking things through)
2. The offer has been put out there, "the Danny" has never been one to haggle (any counter offer should kill this deal unless more 1st day picks are involved)
3. If the counter offer doesn't kill the deal time will.

I have been a long time lurker on this board. Never have I ever seen such foolish remarks about a GREAT trade. I really don't get it. The hate for the briggs deal really does confuse me.

I think people on this board are overlooking a few key facts about the trade

Bear with me.. this could get long

1. The money we pay to briggs will be less than what we pay to the number 6 pick.

2. Briggs is a two time pro-bowler... not an unproven rookie. Everyone on here talks about how the draft is a crap shoot. So instead of taking a gamble we are doing the safe bet and going with a proven veteran who is still really young. Kind of hypocritical don't you think?

3. WE STILL GET THE NUMBER 31 PICK. We want to trade down anyways. So instead of getting a lower 1st rounder... and a 2nd or third we get a pro bowler and still get a first rounder.

(lets be honest.. if we do trade out of the 6 pick we will only get two picks this year for it. Its a pipe dream to think a team will give up all its first day picks for our number 6. Especially in a draft year in which nobody wants to trade up and the top players more than likely will not fall. You can look at all the value charts you want but you must also factor the situation in. If nobody wants to trade up then you must accept something below market value)

Say we did trade out of the number 6 spot and got a mid first rounder and a second rounder. We get two unproven rookies. Instead... if we did the Briggs deal.. we get a 2 TIME PRO BOWL linebacker and an unproven rookie. The obvious better deal is to get briggs.

4. If we make the deal we're giving up on Rocky WHAT? Once again hypocracy by people here on the board. You talk about building through the draft. You build in steps. Do we all forget how Antonio Pierce sat on the bench for three years until he was ready to play? Getting briggs does not mean we give up on rocky. If anything it helps us with rocky. He can sit and learn more. Posibly even make a transition to MLB. He will have time to learn for the guys above him and learn the system. Washington and Fletcher aren't spring chickens. Its ok to sit rocky until these guys get too old to play. Doesn't mean we're giving up on him

5. Briggs benefited from having urlacher. I don't believe this is true but lets say that it is. I find it hard for anyone to argue that London Fletcher is not a top middle linebacker. Maybe not as physically talented as Urlacher but definately up there in production. Add to the equation Marcus Washington.. a pro bowl Strongside linebacker. So we take briggs away from a team with one good linebacker and pair him with two good linebackers. Shouldn't that benefit him more.

6. Our defensive line needs to be addressed more than adding a linebacker... I don't disagree.. our defensive line could use an upgrade.. but I really don't see it as a pressing need.. and neither does our team in my opinion. If it did we wouldn't be making this deal.

After watching the NFL network replay of the Jags game.. i saw that our line got adequate pressure on the qb. Greg Williams defense is not a defense that gets sacks based on its line. Its pressure comes from blitzes and good short coverage to allow those blitzes to get there. In the Jags game replay.. it seemed every third down we were rushing Washington and/or arch. That forced leftwich to step up in a broken down pocket and allowed our defensive line to get three sacks on him.

I would say a little less than half the sacks in the NFL come from coverage. If you take away the first option and have a immoble qb he will either dump it off or get sacked. The quick blitzes only require a few good seconds of coverage to adaquately get to most qb's. Adding briggs.. a great cover linebacker.. and fletcher.. a good cover 2 middle linebacker.. we have far better coverage inside

(Look at the games from last year.. we got beat in the middle. MLB and Safety. And a lot of the gains were thrown by a qb that had a man in his face. We upgraded MLB and the upgrade at MLB should help the safety position. Sean Taylor was too busy last year getting coverages right and wasn't able to just play. I would like to give an example. NFL replay just reran the Jags game. As the jags were coming back from a 10 point deficit.. there was a play in which the defense was lined up in a deep zone.. leaving the underneath open. There were two linebackers in coverage ..marcus had blitzed. TE mercedes lewis and i believe a running back came across the middle in opposite directions.. and instead of Lemar staying in zone like he was supposed to.. he followed the RB. That left marshall and holdman both on the running back.. while lewis went across to the other side wide open for a 12 yard gain and key first down.)

Briggs strength comes in his coverage of TE's and Running Backs. That wouldn't have happened with him.

7. Briggs wouldn't help our running game as much as a D-Lineman would...Did anyone watch the games last year? Our tackling sucked. Adding two linebackers with over 100 tackles last year each should fix that. Not to mention Holdman is gone. Offenses ran right at carter and holdman. Its amazing how many tackles on running plays sean taylor had because he had to help holdman. Branch wouldn't help cause they'll still run outside. Adams wouldn't help cause he'd get pushed off. A cairaker or anderson would hold their own but they also wouldn't help the team like briggs would in coverage.

8. Why get briggs when we have lemar marshall... Lets be honest.. marshall has given a lot to the skins and i really like him as a player.. but he's overacheiving. He's an average to below average starter. He's also in his 30s. I believe Chicago will counter with a deal to get Golston... we will turn it down and they will ask for rocky.. and we will turn it down and then they will ask for Lemar. And everyone on this board will say how awful a deal it would be to give up lemar. I respect what he has done for the skins but I would love to see lemar go if we could get briggs. We'd be replacing an aging veteran that really wouldn't hold much value except depth at MLB. Rocky would provide depth at OLB. Yes this would be risky if Fletcher got hurt but i'd rather take my chances and get a pro bowl WLB for 7yrs.

I believe I have countered every arguement against briggs. Please let the logical thinkers on this board step up and voice for the briggs trade. I really believe this trade would be the defining step in bringing our defense back into the top 5. With the additions of Smoot, Fletcher and Briggs and the key subtractions of Arch and Holdman.. I see us springboarding back to a dominant D.

P.S.... please no "Cause if we deal for briggs we wont' get CJ" Another hypocritical view on this board. I see so many ppl talking about why pay our linebackers so much money... then in turn want CJ?!? Wouldn't we be doing the same thing at the WR position. Yes.. three linebackers may not be used on third down. But rarely will we ever see 4 WR's on third down.

P.S.S. ... Anyone remember how much this board loved Mike Williams last year... wonder what happened to him

Very nice assessment, CcHhDd! That was a nice combination of logic, rationale and common sense. Well done.

And one thing I'd like to add that I think some folks are overlooking.

The Skins obviously want to maximize the yield of the #6 pick. There are several possible scenarios that can be attractive. I have been a supporter of the Briggs deal, BUT ONLY if there are no better options. Teams ARE having problems trading down this year because the top of the draft class is just not that spectacular. Basically, there's CJ in a class all alone... and then there's everyone else. Some always look at the draft chart for point value's and fail to look at the quality of those to be drafted. You HAVE to factor that in, as well as team needs of those below you.