clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Why Briggs doesn't make sense

I've typed enough on the subject and I still don't feel like I've adequately gotten the point across. I'll leave that to Ryan O'Halloran at The Times (Hat tip: Extreme Skins):

    1. The Redskins will essentially be paying mega-bucks to a two-down linebacker because I doubt Gregg Williams will overhaul his scheme for Briggs. I watched a tape of the Redskins-Giants game (Week 17) when word broke the team was interested in Briggs. The Redskins used three linebackers on 39 of the Giants 61 offensive snaps, two linebackers on seven plays and one linebacker 15 times. Rocky McIntosh, in the spot Briggs plays, was on the field for only three of the 22 plays where the Redskins didn't use three linebackers. London Fletcher in the middle will be an every-down backer and Marcus Washington, because of his threat as a pass rusher, will also be on the field on third down. The way to keep Briggs on the field is to use a look on passing downs that uses Washington as a stand-up defensive end/pass rusher. Not an ideal scenario.
    2. Acquiring Briggs will add a solid tackler, but it won't solve two big problems: Creating turnovers and pressuring the quarterback. In 64 career games, he has 3.5 sacks, seven forced fumbles and six interceptions.
    3. How little confidence do the Redskins have in McIntosh? Can they possibly be giving up on him after one season and two starts? My take is that they weren't thrilled with McIntosh's development last year (I mean, he couldn't beat out Warrick Holdman) but the coaching staff still thinks he can play. The Briggs pursuit has been led by The Danny.
    4. Doesn't the owner remember what happened with Adam Archuleta? He thrived in Lovie Smith's scheme in St. Louis, but didn't fit Williams' scheme in D.C. That should scare Snyder away from anybody with ties to the 'Tampa Two' philosophy, especially linebackers and defensive backs.
Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree. Paying Lance Briggs might make sense from the Bears perspective since they run a defense that can get him on the field and, thus, can get value for dollars spent. Can we do the same?

Lance Briggs doesn't play on the line and isn't a prolific sacker by any stretch of the imagination. He'd be more of an asset against the run, which is good, but does little to solve our pass rush. I viewed London Fletcher, in conjunction with a personnel upgrade on the line, as the answer to our rushing troubles. It seems like we're just piling it on without consideration for where we were weakest in '06; getting after the QB.

I don't want to believe that supplanting McIntosh is being seriously considered because that would mean we'd made a serious error in wasting three draft picks just to scoop him last year. Without team access I haven't the foggiest idea how much this is Dan Snyder vs. that of the Coaching staff. I do know that McIntosh has not been given ample opportunity to prove himself bust-worthy. On the contrary he looked pretty damn good (he was the only one) against St. Louis last year, racking up 10 solo tackles.

Finally, Lance Briggs operates in a different scheme and we've already seen (as the O'Halloran points out) how bringing in someone else's role player doesn't necessarily mean they'll succeed here. The crazy thing is that Archuleta and Briggs are both Lovie Smith products, making the potential parallels far too close for comfort. Walk away from this trade, Washington.

Ryan closes with talk of the Calvin Johnson trade, suggesting "the masses", of which I consider myself, would "applaud" a Redskins wheel-and-deal for Johnson. I would not.

Look at the potential lineup for Jason Campbell to throw to: Receivers Santana Moss and Johnson (I don't count Lloyd until he catches his first touchdown for the Redskins -- he had none in 15 games last year), tight end Chris Cooley plus running backs Clinton Portis and Ladell Betts. Moss' numbers would suffer the most.
That would be quite an impressive offense.

Here's another lineup to consider:
Andre Carter, Cornelius Griffin, Joe Salave'a (maybe? Kedric Golston?), Phillip Daniels. Presuming they'll pull a repeat performance of their dismal 2006 pass rush is a mistake; they'll do worse. With the exception of Golston, these guys are not developing talents. Andre Carter still has some juice left in the tank (and was the most valuable player on the line last year) but Salave'a/Griffin/Daniels will be a combined 97 years old by the end of the '07 season. Half our Defensive Line needs replacing in the immediate future and trading up for Calvin Johnson makes that task desparately difficult. How can a team with such an insignificant pass rush last year head into '07 with a completely unchanged front four?