The Times has an excellent blurb about why, specifically, Lance Briggs might not be the best fit in our defensive scheme. Remember Adam Archuleta as the quintessential square peg skill set stuffed unsuccessfully into our round hole defense ([editor's note, by Skin Patrol] Ryan O'Halloran used the same analogy and probably wrote it long before this post was up, so he is due credit); he was a line of scrimmage guy who was strong against the run but weak against the pass. Though he might have a long and fruitful career in the NFL post-Washington, we utilized him ineffectively by foolishly thinking we could plug him into our defensive scheme.
"I thought they were set at linebacker like everybody else," the scout said. "I'm a little confused as to why they want Lance as bad as they seem to want him."
The scout said the Bears used Briggs regularly on third down. The Redskins' philosophy the last three seasons was to use two linebackers -- the middle and strong-side backers -- and three cornerbacks on third down.
"He wouldn't be as productive in their defense," the scout said. "Chicago's defense is designed to have the weak-side linebacker never be blocked and make every kind of tackle and play known to man. In [the Redskins' defense], the weak-side linebacker is taking on offensive tackles. He's not going to be the player for them as he was or will be for the Bears."
He would still make this defense better as he is a very talented LB, but he's not worth sacrificing picks, McIntosh's development, and a high priced contract to acquire. I still vote no on this and am pleased the Bears saved us from ourselves.
On a semi-related note, the Times reminded me of something I had forgotten from last year: