clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Lance Briggs trade rumors resurface, Skin Patrol meets cliff edge

New, comments
Update [2007-4-27 11:23:3 by Skin Patrol]: War Cry! weighs in and itemizes nicely the concerns many of us have with Lance Briggs, and this proposed trade. It is a worthwhile read.
Hat Tip to FanHouse's Michael David Smith who suggests that the Bears might be after Brady Quinn with the #6 pick, an interesting development.

Anyways, per The Post (emphasis mine):

The Bears have remained open to trading Briggs and have bristled at the contract demands of his agent, Drew Rosenhaus. According to one league source, the Bears could settle for Washington's original offer prior to Saturday should no better deal come along. The Redskins could in turn request additional compensation for their first-round draft choice.
Nooooooooooooooooooo! I've already said why I don't want Lance Briggs, though a brief recap is in order. Linebacker is not a need position given that we have Marcus Washington, newly acquired London Fletcher, Rocky McIntosh, and all backed up by Lemar Marshall. As Briggs plays the Will LB, this would definitely mean a bench spot for McIntosh barring injury to someone else. Briggs will demand a high contract mitigated slightly by the fact that we'll only have to pay #31 money and not #6 money. To that I say -- we shouldn't pay the #6 money anyways, let's do whatever we can to trade down.

The deal essentially comes out to trading Lance Briggs for the value of the #16 pick of the draft. That Lance Briggs the player is worth at least as much as that pick in any given draft is unquestionable; he's a Pro Bowl talent that would improve almost any defense by his presence. And he would improve the Redskins defense. But moving down to get him is like putting a bandaid on a headache. Linebacker is not a need and Rocky McIntosh already cost us 3 draft picks to select -- let's see what the kid can do. Weak side linebacker sees the field relatively infrequently in Gregg Williams defense and Rocky's contract is far cap-friendlier than Lance Briggs would be. I'd take McIntosh as the bargain, here (or even Lemar Marshall).

I've made this point elsewhere, but going strong after Briggs is evidence that the team lacks confidence in Rocky McIntosh. Bringing in London Fletcher is evidence that we lack confidence in Lemar Marshall. Warrick Holdman didn't deserve confidence in the first place. We would already have our Pro Bowl linebacker had we simply paid Antonio Pierce; instead he walked. Cumulatively there isn't any indication that the Redskins know anything about Linebackers. This should cast significant doubt on our scouting reports of Lance Briggs which presumably have driven our interest (unless we're simply swooning).

And, uhhhh:

As a rule the Redskins do not discuss specific trades, and team officials reached last night refused to comment on the possibility of a trade for Briggs.
What about that time when Dan Snyder proposed a specific trade to Drew Rosenhaus -- who doesn't represent any NFL team, by the way -- in a bar at the Owner's Meeting? The deal then proposed just happened to be the one that was officially sent to Chicago shortly thereafter, and happens to be the one rumored above that the Bears might accept. And, uhhhh:
[With the 31st pick t]he Redskins are also intrigued by receivers Ted Ginn Jr. (Ohio State) and Dwayne Bowe (Louisiana State University). Although wide receiver is not a pressing need, they could be tempted to take one of them at the end of the first round if they trade down.
I am shaking my head. It doesn't make any sense to draft Calvin Johnson but it is at least justifiable given that he's the best WR prospect to enter the NFL in years -- perhaps ever. The main argument against is that we're currently paying out 90M in WR contracts to Moss, Randle-El, and Brandon Lloyd. And we have James Thrash. Please view the Redskins sincere interest in a WR late in round 1 as evidence that someone is leaving Washington by the end of the year.