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

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:16 am**

Possible Briggs trade to Redskins remains up in air
By Bob LeGere
Daily Herald Sports Writer
Posted Tuesday, April 03, 2007

The Bears reported no new developments Monday in the Lance Briggs saga.

General manager Jerry Angelo was still contemplating the Washington Redskins’ offer to swap their first-round pick (sixth overall) in exchange for the Bears’ first-rounder (31st overall) and the two-time Pro Bowl linebacker, who is disenchanted with his status as the Bears’ franchise player.

Angelo was planning to speak with the Redskins today.

While that designation entitles Briggs to a $7.2 million salary this season, it essentially prevents him from selling his services on the open market of free agency, where he could expect a signing bonus in the $15 million neighborhood.

According to the NFL’s system of evaluating draft picks, that swap is equal to the Bears getting the 16th overall pick for Briggs, but speculation is that they want a veteran player included in the deal.

“I’m going to talk to them in the near future and see where it goes,” Angelo said late Monday afternoon. “I haven’t replied to their offer, but I said we would mull it over.”

Since there is no one on the Bears’ roster capable of adequately replacing Briggs, it’s possible the Bears would like to include Redskins sixth-year veteran linebacker Lemar Marshall in the trade.

Marshall was a starter the past two seasons at middle linebacker but has been displaced by recently acquired unrestricted free agent London Fletcher.

In 2004, Marshall started at weak-side linebacker, the same position as Briggs. Marshall led the Redskins in tackles in 2005 and was second last season. Another possibility is linebacker Rocky McIntosh, the Redskins’ second-round draft choice last season, who has experience at all three linebacker spots and is a standout special-teams player.

But Angelo won’t publicly discuss specific players or even admit that the Bears will counter the Redskins’ initial offer.

“I’ve given a lot of things some thought, but I’m not going to get specific,” Angelo said. “These are negotiations that are going to be kept confidential.”

Angelo said there isn’t a timetable, but negotiations with the Redskins are expected to be consummated or terminated by the end of the week.

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/story.asp?id=297497

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:21 am**

OK, you can save us from our own personnel issue, but you need to save our face too by throwing more into the deal.

Initially I agreed with throwing in Marshall, but I'm thinking a 16 (equivalent) is enough for Briggs and if they want Marshall we get at least a second day draft pick from them.

Else we sit and let them continue to mull it over. No reason to press them before draft day, but no reason to give them more to save them either.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:22 am**

SkinsFreak wrote: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.

CJ is not alone, there is Russell, Thomas, Peterson, and Quinn also people can debate where they go all they want but most feel they'll all be gone by #6. All would be worth the $14-$16M it would cost the drafting team to sign them at #6 but who else out there would you give that kind of money too, after giving up additional picks just to be there to draft them.
If one of them falls then having the pick on draft day might bring a small winfall but if we have the pick and all 5 are gone :cry:

Getting down between #12 & #16 would be ideal.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:47 am**

SkinsFreak wrote:
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?

We're talking about whether Briggs is worth 7+ mil a year plus a first round pick. Rypien is a rudimentary example of a "system" player who would not be very valuable to another team. I'm trying to draw a comparison between Rypien and Briggs as both are guys who look better because of the system they are in and the talent they have been surrounded with. Therefore, and bear with me here, (no pun intended) Briggs may not be worth as much to the Washington Redskins as his Chicago Bears status would lead you to believe. In fact, and here's the amazing realization; despite fitting in their scheme and playing well for the Bears, THE BEARS DO NOT WANT TO PAY BRIGGS WHAT HE IS ASKING, AND THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO GIVE UP A FIRST ROUND PICK TO GET HIM! :shock:

So the Redskins will gamble that Briggs fits the system, pay Briggs MORE THAN THE BEARS ARE WILLING TO PAY HIM and GIVE UP THE EQUIVALENT OF THE 16TH OVERALL SELECTION. :puke:

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:48 am**

SkinsFreak wrote:
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?

Marshall got a grade of 70 vs. 77 given to Briggs. I included the link, read it for yourself. :roll:

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:13 am**

SkinsJock wrote:
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.

Yes, I did make the Vinny quote up. It wasn't intended to be a secret :hmm:

Glad you sniffed it out :roll:

Yes Fletcher is a MLB while Briggs is a WLB. Didn't think it needed pointing out. The idea here is that we just signed Fletcher to a 5 mil a year deal, with no draft picks surrendered. and while Fletcher is a good player, I don't think we would all be clamoring to sign him to a 7+ mil/year deal AND give away the equivalent of a first round pick. Maybe you would? :shock:

Anyway, if you're still following along, it is simply an example that Scouts Inc. does not value Briggs at a star level. He is a nice starting caliber LB who probably does not warrant the money and draft pick required to get him.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:25 am**

Briggs is good player but his greatness is a result of the scheme and players around him. If he comes here he won't be able to play to the same level because we don't have the same level of players.

He's not worth the money imo.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:25 pm**

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Briggs is good player but his greatness is a result of the scheme and players around him. If he comes here he won't be able to play to the same level because we don't have the same level of players.

He's not worth the money imo.

This is exactly what Keith Kidd (former NFL scout, for the Patriots amongst others) said in an ESPN Insider Article (here.

The Redskins, on the other hand, finished 31st in the NFL in total defense in 2006 thanks to a lack of playmakers. Defensive coordinator Gregg Williams relies on complex pressure schemes that rely on linebackers to react and play in space, but the supporting cast there would not put Briggs in the same kind of situation he is in with the Bears.

Briggs is a perfect fit in Chicago but would not have the same impact on the field in Washington. He is also an outstanding presence in the locker room and well-respected by his Bears teammates, adding yet another consideration to any possible deal. The Redskins would get a good young player but would struggle to get the same production and impact out of Briggs.

I think the last sentence is the most germane to this whole discussion. You can't pay someone 20 mill guarenteed and not get excellent impact and production from them.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:09 pm**

I like how so many people can predict the future. They said the same thing about Moss, that he couldn't be as productive. :roll:

The "experts" are always right.

fleetus wrote:THE BEARS DO NOT WANT TO PAY BRIGGS WHAT HE IS ASKING

No kidding. The Bears don't want to pay anyone. They almost failed to pay the coach that got them to the SB, until the media forced them into it. They didn't want to pay Jones either.

fleetus wrote:We're talking about whether Briggs is worth 7+ mil a year plus a first round pick.

fleetus wrote:AND THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO GIVE UP A FIRST ROUND PICK TO GET HIM!

fleetus wrote:AND give away the equivalent of a first round pick.

You obviously have failed to fully comprehend the parameters of this trade offer.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:27 pm**

SkinsFreak wrote:I like how so many people can predict the future. They said the same thing about Moss, that he couldn't be as productive. The "experts" are always right.

And what did Moss do last year? Why did Moss's number sink? Cus of what was happening around him. He was just as good in 2006 as he was in 2005 but the running game was slow to take off, MB, the QB switch, the new scheme it effected him. The same is going to happen to Briggs if we don't get defensive line together. And to be quite honest its going to take more than one off season to get our line up into the upper echelon of lines.

We have to look at what is Briggs and what is the system. If Briggs is removed from the system how good is he is his own? Are we paying for Briggs or are we paying for what the system has allowed him to be.

I simply don't think Briggs is an elite LB, he's darn good but not elite. And I don't think he is doing anything Lemar or Rocky can't do given the same circumstances.

2000 Ray Lewis : One of the BEST LB's to ever play the game.
2002 Ray Lewis - the front four he used to have : Above average LB.

I said this earlier in the off season. We cannot and do not need to try to fix everything in one off season. Lets pick and choose and think ahead. Briggs may work out if we do acquire him but it seems too much like the past acquisitions were we're expecting a photocopy and it's impossible.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:00 pm**

Why do some of you think that if we sign Briggs, we won't address the d-line?

CLL wrote:And what did Moss do last year? Why did Moss's number sink? Cus of what was happening around him. He was just as good in 2006 as he was in 2005 but the running game was slow to take off, MB, the QB switch, the new scheme it effected him.

When we initially traded Coles for Moss, the "experts" said Moss couldn't be as productive as Coles, based on the numbers Moss put up in N.Y. Then in 2005, Moss goes and breaks the Skins single season receiving record. So, the "experts" were proven wrong. That's what I was referring to. With regard to 2006, I totally agree with what you are saying. A WR's numbers significantly drop when a QB fails to throw to them or the QB can't throw the ball beyond five yards. But a WR's and a LB's production levels are measured very differently. A LB IS involved in every play, where a WR is not.

It is very difficult to discern whether or not a players production is the product of the system itself until he plays in another system. Why couldn't Briggs be successful in Williams system? We already know there's going to be scheme changes and personnel changes in Williams system, but we haven't seen it yet. Just like my friend says, who's a Philly fan, regarding giving up Stallworth and signing Curtis; let's wait to see how it pans out before we draw conclusions and pass judgement. No one can predict the future.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:07 pm**

SkinsFreak wrote:Just like my friend says, who's a Philly fan, regarding giving up Stallworth and signing Curtis; let's wait to see how it pans out before we draw conclusions and pass judgement. No one can predict the future.

Which is very true. However, the exact same thing can be said about drafting someone, right?

I mean Briggs is a known quantity in the Bears Defense. He's virtually an unknown quantity in our defense. For all we know he could fit our system as well as Archuleta did.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:11 pm**

SkinsFreak wrote:Why do some of you think that if we sign Briggs, we won't address the d-line?

Not saying we won't but I just want the team to wait. I have a feeling/opinion that we'll have a good deal on our hands on draft day. I have a feeling that someone will drop to us.

A LB IS involved in every play,

We do NOT know how much improved our line will be. We do know what Briggs is capable of. I'd bet $50 that our line will not be as good as Chicago's in 2007.

A LB can only be as effective as the front four allows him to be. Lance Briggs will turn into Peter Brown if he has to shed blocks from OG's all game.

With the current state of our defensive line, I simply do not feel that Briggs is worth what it'll cost to bring him here. I feel that our LB's are adequate and I feel that Rocky will be a beast. I'm moreso interested in growing our own players.

As far as Briggs is concerned this would be one of our smarter acquisitions but I'm just not a fan of it.

SkinsFreak wrote:Why couldn't Briggs be successful in Williams system?

My concern is moreso with the players surrounding him than the scheme. We are not 1-2 players away from Chicago's defense. I think we're 3-5 players away. (not all starters, the # includes subs also)

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:15 pm**

PulpExposure wrote:I mean Briggs is a known quantity in the Bears Defense. He's virtually an unknown quantity in our defense. For all we know he could fit our system as well as Archuleta did.

Or as well as Marcus does. He may be good or he may be bad. Could work out either way. But some continue to infatically say he'll be bad, as if they have a crystal ball.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:18 pm**

SkinsFreak wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:I mean Briggs is a known quantity in the Bears Defense. He's virtually an unknown quantity in our defense. For all we know he could fit our system as well as Archuleta did.

Or as well as Marcus does. He may be good or he may be bad. Could work out either way. But some continue to infatically say he'll be bad, as if they have a crystal ball.

Hmm. I'm not a fan of getting him simply because I don't think he'll be fantastic. And really, you pay the equivalent of the 16th pick in the draft AND 20 mill guarenteed for a guy, he's got to be a star. And I just don't see Briggs being that kind of gamechanging player...on our defense.

Especially with our line that at times was just dominated last year (remember the Titans game...where they were pushing us back 5-6 yards on every running play?). A linebacker can't fix that. Really, only D-line can. We got no pressure on the QB, and I don't expect Lance Briggs, he of the 3.5 career sacks (less than a sack a year!) to fix that either.

If we drop to the bottom of the 1st, our chance of getting a top notch, game breaking d-lineman is severely diminished (not eliminated, but diminished).

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:23 pm**

SkinsFreak wrote:Or as well as Marcus does.

But look at the year he had because of our porous line....

My whole thing is that we need to address this area in a bad way. I just don't want them to overlook DT/DE. I don't want them to try to overcompensate at LB to try to make up the deficiencies at d-line. I don't want Briggs to be the next scape goat. I don;t want him heralded as the next savior of the defense.

IF we get him we better fix this line in a serious way because it'll be a waste of talent and money. And like AA, it won't really be his fault. We can't keep expecting these guys to work miracles.

This isn't directed at you, it's more so in general.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:23 pm**

PulpExposure wrote:
SkinsFreak wrote:Just like my friend says, who's a Philly fan, regarding giving up Stallworth and signing Curtis; let's wait to see how it pans out before we draw conclusions and pass judgement. No one can predict the future.

Which is very true. However, the exact same thing can be said about drafting someone, right?

I mean Briggs is a known quantity in the Bears Defense. He's virtually an unknown quantity in our defense. For all we know he could fit our system as well as Archuleta did.

Well, if the reason for not getting him was that he might work out like AA did, then I hope we get him - he also might turn out to be the best LB ever. No one really knows - this guy just looks a lot better than any LB coming out of the draft. We do not happen to need a LB IMO - but I have a feeling this guy will be playing very good football for some team for quite some time - he's only 26 :shock:

I hope we do not steal this guy from the Bears because even though I totally disagree with all those who wonder if he could be very good I really want to develop a better team along the front first. I happen to think that we will be better than OK with the LBs we have now and I am hoping that we can get the people to go with the lineman we have now to give Williams the opportunity to show all the doubters that he is one of the best defensive coaches in the NFL.

Getting our defense to play at that level and having the offense showing why Saunders is so highly respected will mean we are a very competitive team again.

Gibbs, Saunders and Williams will get us back into the play-offs this year.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:25 pm**

Chris Luva Luva wrote: We can't keep expecting these guys to work miracles.

Agreed. But we also can't continue to think they will fail everytime we go to sign a free agent.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:31 pm**

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6640430

Foxsports is reporting Chicago turned down the Redskins offer.
Good news for those who don't like the deal.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:34 pm**

SkinsFreak wrote:
Chris Luva Luva wrote: We can't keep expecting these guys to work miracles.

Agreed. But we also can't continue to think they will fail everytime we go to sign a free agent.

Everyone is going to agree on everything. IF this was a topnotch DT/DE I'd be all over this.

Since I feel we dont need another LB, I'm not enthused about the trade.

I'm not enthused about his price tag.

The fact that the Skins aren't impressed about the rookies is cool and I'm all for trading down but is this the right time? Is this the right offer?

I'm not 100% against anything but I'm all for waiting and not jumping the gun like we usually do.

IF this ends up being the best thing for us, then we can do it. This deal will 9/10 be available on draft day.

I say we do this.

Pre-draft. Set up a skeleton deal with the Bears.
Draft: See who falls to us. If we dont like who's left, trade down or go to the Bears.

AT LEAST we're giving ourselves options.....

Didn't the Vikings screw up the draft twice in a row? Shoot, Tampa might write BRady Quinn instead of Calvin......you never know...

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:09 pm**

Chris Luva Luva wrote:The fact that the Skins aren't impressed about the rookies is cool and I'm all for trading down but is this the right time? Is this the right offer?

I'm not 100% against anything but I'm all for waiting and not jumping the gun like we usually do.

IF this ends up being the best thing for us, then we can do it. This deal will 9/10 be available on draft day.

I say we do this.

Pre-draft. Set up a skeleton deal with the Bears.
Draft: See who falls to us. If we dont like who's left, trade down or go to the Bears.

AT LEAST we're giving ourselves options.....

Didn't the Vikings screw up the draft twice in a row? Shoot, Tampa might write BRady Quinn instead of Calvin......you never know...

You nailed it. It isn't that every free agent deal is bad. It isn't that every trade is bad. It isn't that the Skins can't draft players well. It is that we seem to regularly jump the gun on deals without really sitting back and fielding offeres. With the #6 pick, every day closer to draft day that pick will look better and better to some teams. By draft day, there is always a chance that THE player for one or two teams falls to #6 and we get a sweet deal. Why do the deal for Briggs knowing that he will have to play his best season of his career, in a new system, just to justify what we are giving up for him? Meanwhile, Chicago might take that #6 pick and draft the next Shawn Merriman or the next Dwight Freeney

If we traded down to #8 or below, here's a list of those picks from a few years ago, would you want any of these players in burgundy and gold? (plus pick up an extra couple of draft picks) Pretty much all of these guys are major starters for their teams and as far as I know, none of them costs as much as Briggs will.

8 DeAngelo Hall CB Virginia Tech
9 Reggie Williams WR Washington
10 Dunta Robinson CB South Carolina
11 Ben Roethlisberger QB Miami, O.
12 Jonathan Vilma MLB Miami
13 Lee Evans WR Wisconsin
14 Tommie Harris DT Oklahoma
15 Michael Clayton WR Louisiana State
16 Shawn Andrews G Arkansas
17 D.J. Williams OLB Miami
18 Will Smith DE Ohio State
19 Vernon Carey T Miami
20 Kenechi Udeze DE Southern California
21 Vince Wilfork NT Miami
22 J.P. Losman QB Tulane
23 Marcus Tubbs DT Texas
24 Steven Jackson RB Oregon State
25 Ahmad Carroll CB Arkansas

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:14 pm**

And why does Chicago want Rocky so bad according to Foxsports?

Is it because they see his talent?

Is it because he'll be cheap?

Is it because within the system and the people he'll be around he'll be a suitable replacement?

It's all of those things. We need to look at our guys like the others teams are. But we're too busy thinking the grass is always greener.

Screw this deal! Keep Rocky, grow him into a beast!

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:40 pm**

Chris Luva Luva wrote:And why does Chicago want Rocky so bad according to Foxsports?

Is it because they see his talent?

Is it because he'll be cheap?

Is it because within the system and the people he'll be around he'll be a suitable replacement?

It's all of those things. We need to look at our guys like the others teams are. But we're too busy thinking the grass is always greener.

Screw this deal! Keep Rocky, grow him into a beast!

I don't think anyone's arguing with you here. Many of us were for Briggs and #31 for #6, including me. I haven't seen anyone say Briggs and #31 for Rocky and #6, including me. At least in the end (if this is the end) we agree.

But I think it means nothing. If I were Chicago given our history like with Champ/Portis of negotiating a good trade and then making it bad by throwing in a #2, why not? They can always rekindle the deal if we don't crack up until the draft and lose nothing but the chance we'll strike another deal first, which is possible but unlikely before draft day anyway.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:16 pm**

Just another opinion:

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006939358

Briggs would provide a powerful weakside defender to balance Fletcher's attack and could make Washington one of the better defensive cores in the NFC.

CLL wrote:And why does Chicago want Rocky so bad according to Foxsports?

http://story.scout.com/a.z?s=63&p=2&c=632350

Chicago would love the Redskins’ young linebacker Rocky McIntosh in the deal to play Briggs’ outside linebacker position. By trading Briggs, Chicago has no starting weakside `backer. However, Redskins sources contend they do not want to part with McIntosh even though he’ll either have to move positions or wait for an injury to Briggs if he is to get on the field over the next couple of years.

One Redskins official said despite the logjam, they view McIntosh as a good young player who has too much upside with which to part.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:22 pm**

SkinsFreak wrote:Just another opinion:

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006939358

Briggs would provide a powerful weakside defender to balance Fletcher's attack and could make Washington one of the better defensive cores in the NFC.

CLL wrote:And why does Chicago want Rocky so bad according to Foxsports?

http://story.scout.com/a.z?s=63&p=2&c=632350

Chicago would love the Redskins’ young linebacker Rocky McIntosh in the deal to play Briggs’ outside linebacker position. By trading Briggs, Chicago has no starting weakside `backer. However, Redskins sources contend they do not want to part with McIntosh even though he’ll either have to move positions or wait for an injury to Briggs if he is to get on the field over the next couple of years.

One Redskins official said despite the logjam, they view McIntosh as a good young player who has too much upside with which to part.

And this is why we don't like to have more than one thread on a topic. All day I've had to write duplicate replies in 2/3 threads. My answer is at the URL below.

http://www.thehogs.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23203&start=30

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

lance briggs