Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Their position is that are fully capable of doing what they are doing (FTing Briggs) and that they will not be forced into a deal because it makes him unhappy. In no way, shape or form does this mean they don't want to deal him. If they get the right value for him, they'll move him in a heartbeat.abrecher said:
I don't think it is possible for me to love an owner more, and hate him so much at the same time. I love how he just dumps money into the team, willing to go out and get whatever player he thinks we need......which is also what I hate, I wish to god we could get a decent GM in there to show Danny the RIGHT players we need.redman said:fatness said:All I have to say is thank God for Gibbs. Buzzed in a cocktail lounge would have to be where this offer came from, because it certainly wasn't coming from anyone looking out for the interests of the team.
I'd like to be optimistic here too, Redman, and echo your sentiments, but...UNFORTUNATELY, local DC Sportstalk 980 AM is reporting that according to the Chicago Sun-Times, that the Redskins and Rosenhaus/Briggs have agreed to a contract that would pay Briggs about 7.5M a year, with 20M guaranteed (I don't know the length). No link, just heard on the radio within the last hour.
I'd be thrilled if someone else in the know rose to the occasion and debunked this.
Ironic, isn't it, that I heard this being discussed on the radio in my car as I was returning from the FedEx Office...
...where I'd just overnighted Snyder and Co about 5K for my Season Tickets?!?!?!
Nothing like telegraphing your intentions by agreeing to the terms of a nice fat contract with the player before negotiating a trade with the team holding his rights. That ought to cost us at least one commodity being discussed. Lovely.
You know, I think I hate The Daniel almost as much as I'd LOVE to play poker with him...
And yet they haven't. Which means they've already rejected the Redskins' offer.
The Bears are shopping a young, proven star. The 'Skins would be quite lucky to get a player of his caliber at the #6 pick (who will receive a huge contract, regardless of his skill). The Bears want more, and they should. I'm guessing the Skins sweeten the deal come draft day...Bears Want More for BriggsNot DelusionalNo way this happens for Briggs and their #1 for the #6. At LEAST the Skins #1 #2 and next years #2 for BRiggs and the Bears #2...at least.They guy is damn good, that's why they franchised him...Gee, I'll bet it is!
You're delusional
Nice spin. Willis is better.The Bears are shopping a young, proven star. The 'Skins would be quite lucky to get a player of his caliber at the #6 pick (who will receive a huge contract, regardless of his skill). The Bears want more, and they should. I'm guessing the Skins sweeten the deal come draft day...Bears Want More for BriggsNot DelusionalNo way this happens for Briggs and their #1 for the #6. At LEAST the Skins #1 #2 and next years #2 for BRiggs and the Bears #2...at least.They guy is damn good, that's why they franchised him...Gee, I'll bet it is!
The trouble with your theory is that the 'Skins' area of need is not at that position. I think this deal either flys or crashes on the present terms.
This is just wrong. The Skins are without depth at LB, and their starters aren't anything to brag about. It's probably their weakest D position...even moreso than DT. At least there they have Salavea and Griffin, it's just they are always hurt.Briggs is a huge upgrade over someone like...London Fletcher or Khary Cmapbell.No way CHI makes this deal though.
Briggs is NOT a huge upgrade over London Fletcher - in fact, I don't think Briggs would be as good at MLB as Fletcher.
I like Fletcher and his experience, but I totally disagree.All other things equal, Briggs speed makes him a commodity right now.
Let's hope so.
Why are you comparing Briggs to MLB's? He's a WLB. I grant you they have nobody who can play the Will as well as he can (although the jury's still out on McIntosh), but between McIntosh, Marshall and Washington they already have three starting caliber OLB's on their roster. As mediocre as he was as the MLB, Marshall was actually pretty good in 2004 at WLB when he filled in for most of the season for Arrington. Washington has been a Pro-Bowler. DT is a major question right now, because we don't know whether Salave'a has any gas left in the tank, whether Griffin is past the point of being healthy for an entire season anymore, or whether 2nd year guys Golston (a 7th rounder) or Montgomery (a 5th) will be acceptable or not. At end they have Carter who actually started to come on at the end of the year at RDE, and Phillip Daniels who is well past 30 and is playing out of position at LDE and was invisible all last year there. The line needs an upgrade, plain and simple.
Well, I will give them this: Calvin Johnson is one of the few players in recent years I'd even consider trading up for given their overall circumstances . . . but it's still a ridiculous idea. A stud WR is about 14th on the list of needs for teams trying to win a Super Bowl. You can count on one hand the number of stud WR's who have won Super Bowls in the last 10 years.
I already wonder whether the 'Skins would be giving up too much by trading down, so the Lions, who are guaranteed, unlike the 'Skins, to have a shot at either Johnson, Peterson, Russell or Quinn would IMHO be out of their minds to do that deal.
So with Matt Millen still running things I'll take that as a sign the Lions are trying to make it happen.
Washington Post reported it too. This is getting a bit greedy, IMHO. I'm already negative on this trade anyway from a Redskins standpoint, but leaving the picks as is and throwing in a player (or two!) doesn't seem right.Heard on Chicago radio this morning that the Bears were likely going to send a counter offer to the Skins that would be the same deal with the addition of another Skins player. They mentioned 3 possible names, although I forget them. I think one guy's last name was Marshall & they were talking either the DT or LB position.
sorry for some vague details - also no linky - hey i'm tryin
I think they are going after a back-up linebacker.Washington Post reported it too. This is getting a bit greedy, IMHO. I'm already negative on this trade anyway from a Redskins standpoint, but leaving the picks as is and throwing in a player (or two!) doesn't seem right.Heard on Chicago radio this morning that the Bears were likely going to send a counter offer to the Skins that would be the same deal with the addition of another Skins player. They mentioned 3 possible names, although I forget them. I think one guy's last name was Marshall & they were talking either the DT or LB position.
sorry for some vague details - also no linky - hey i'm tryin
I mentioned this when critiquing someone else's mock draft but it bears (no pun intended) repeating here:The Bears won't take a WR in the second (and in this case won't move up to get Calvin). With the emergence of Berrian, and still having Bradley and Mush on their roster they should be fine. The Bears still also like Currie and Rashied Davis. They have a decent young stable of WRs.I also doubt they will draft a QB this year, especially in the early rounds.
the names of the players being thrown around from the Redskins are LB Rocky McIntosh, LB Lemar Marshall or DT Kedric Golston........Bears want Rocky McIntosh but I don't forsee the Redskins parting with a guy they traded up for last yearHeard on Chicago radio this morning that the Bears were likely going to send a counter offer to the Skins that would be the same deal with the addition of another Skins player. They mentioned 3 possible names, although I forget them. I think one guy's last name was Marshall & they were talking either the DT or LB position.sorry for some vague details - also no linky - hey i'm tryin
Certainly not for the picks being discussed. One of the attractive parts of the deal as originally discussed for the Redskins was that they'd not only get Briggs but also, with the Bears' 1.31 be in a position to draft another good defensive player-prospect. If the Bears agreed to add more picks of their own, then maybe it would work. Or you could increase the scope of the trade to include a DE (like Mark Anderson?) which would directly address what the Redskins want to do with their draft pick anyway. Simply adding another player to the deal and holding the other details constant doesn't make much sense though and wouldn't seem very attractive to the Redskins.the names of the players being thrown around from the Redskins are LB Rocky McIntosh, LB Lemar Marshall or DT Kedric Golston........Bears want Rocky McIntosh but I don't forsee the Redskins parting with a guy they traded up for last yearHeard on Chicago radio this morning that the Bears were likely going to send a counter offer to the Skins that would be the same deal with the addition of another Skins player. They mentioned 3 possible names, although I forget them. I think one guy's last name was Marshall & they were talking either the DT or LB position.sorry for some vague details - also no linky - hey i'm tryin
FO finally getting smart and realizing that it's not a must move. Add that the Bears are in the uncomfortable situation with the player threatening to hold out for the 10 games and no pressure for us to do it. I just hope it's true. The only way I think we add a LB'er (Rocky) is if we get one of their DE's back (O-Gun, A. Brown, or M. Anderson), other than that...nope. :fingerscrossed:
Are the Giants really interested, or is this a semi-transparent attempt to show there's more interest in Briggs, thereby getting the Redskins to offer more?
I would think that the Giants are really interested in Briggs because they have a need for LB’s.However will the Giants be willing to pay the price for Briggs? He is going want a big contract and the Bears are going to want a lot for him.
I am assuming Buffalo would want Chicago's early 2nd they got from the swap of picks with NYJ in the T. Jones trade.If that is the case, not a bad move for Buffalo. If they could line up Chris Brown. and they would get Briggs, then they have two early 2nds to fortify other areas. Since Buffalo is running a cover 21, he fits more in their defensive scheme then in NYG or Washington.
Let's freaking hope so...This whole situation is going to be a serious test of the Redskins' mettle, in terms of them taking a more laid back approach to free agency, etc.
Assuming he sits out the first 10 games of '07, how does tagging Briggs in '08 benefit the Bears (other than to be vindictive)?In '07, he won't be in game shape to help the Bears after sitting out the first 10 weeks (at best you might get 3 in shape games). Plus, if I were his agent, I'd advise him to "pull a hammy" <wink><wink> as to not have to practice or play. He could be a total distraction for a team with Superbowl aspiration and could pull a TO and really screw with this team up. Instead of talking about the upcoming opponent all you're gonna get asked about is Lance Briggs. The Eagles have seen first hand what a mess that type of situation can become. It's not worth it to what type of mess he could cause to your team to then re-tag him again.It makes sense to tag him this year until you can draft a suitable replacement, but if you don't you better either pay him the money or let him walk in '08.
I can understand, as a Bears fan, that you're ticked off at Briggs right now for his comments and such. I will say that the resounding feedback from 'Skins fans (message board) is that they do not want the deal to go down. Fans are really upset at the thought of this deal going through think we are giving up too much in the proposed deal. Add that it's been reported that a few GM's have said the Bears are getting the better end of the proposed deal and it gets worse. So, in that regard...maybe the 'Skins fans are right in their feelings. As it looks now, the deal is DEAD and Briggs will either stay a Bear or someone else will need to make a move for him.GRIDIRON ASSASSIN said:
I'm so glad this trade didn't go through!! Of course the Bears want McIntosh, how sweet would that be to get rid of a player that's said he'll never play for you again, get a good prospect to replace him, AND the 6th overall pick!! Lol.Briggs would be nice in the Skins Def but we just can't afford to concentrate that much $$ in the LB Corps, especially when you don't address the DL and they'll just end up having OL all over them.First rule of making a deal: Be willing to walk away from the table.Bears know what they are doing, Redskins don't.
Yes, its a bit vindictive on our part as well as the Bears' part if they re-tag him in '08. BUT, by doing so, it sends a message to all of the other players (and other teams) that players would not win and can't blackmail the teams.
Maybe not game shape but he can still can (and should) be working out.
And this isn't vindictive? So you're saying it's OK for him to pull a stunt like this but the Bears can't? If he did this I would definitely tag him again in '08.
Hmmmm, and here I thought that the Redskins had rejected the offer to throw in McIntosh or Marshall and simply reiterated the original deal as a counter-proposal. You're saying that that suggests that they aren't "willing to walk away from the table"?
Seems your post indicates Redskins offer to Bears, rejected by Bears, thenBears offer to Redskins, rejected by RedskinsSo I'm not sure how this really shows anybody knowing any more than anyone else based on the "Be willing to walk away from the table," theory. They're both walking away given the offers proposed to them.
I guess you watched different Bear wide receivers than I did. Berrian did well last year. Mush is old. Bradley has never managed to stay healthy. Currie and Davis have potential. But I think they could definitely use help at WR. Until someone else steps up I'd keep adding talent.
The Bears have every right to tag him this year, and then again next year if the guy wants to play games. It's part of the collective bargaining agreement. Briggs pay is going up from 700K to 7 Million, so it's not like the Bears are squeezing the guy. When Briggs had the opportunity to 'be the man' in the past (ie when Urlacher was hurt), the Bears didn't win one game in 2004. Urlacher missed 7 games, and they lost all seven: http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/187400/gamelogs/2004 Nice to see Briggs 'step up' to the challenge.I think it's refreshing that a GM is standing up to Drew Rosenhaus and telling him in no uncertain terms fo 'F-Off D-Bag!!'.
Come on Grid,Briggs was a 2nd year LB in 2004 and I wouldn’t say that he didn’t ‘step’ up during that time.
You're delusional
