Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

[quote=Mattyk72;293947]Well, Adam Schefter from NFL Network is reporting that the Redskins will [B][U]NOT[/U][/B] offer up a player in addition to the 6th overall pick. It's a take it or leave it deal from their end.[/quote]


great i love them for that and u matty for posting it now this briggs thing will die

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

[quote=Mattyk72;293947]Well, Adam Schefter from NFL Network is reporting that the Redskins will [B][U]NOT[/U][/B] offer up a player in addition to the 6th overall pick. It's a take it or leave it deal from their end.[/quote]

We may not be 100% nuts after all.

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

[quote=Mattyk72;293947]Well, Adam Schefter from NFL Network is reporting that the Redskins will [B][U]NOT[/U][/B] offer up a player in addition to the 6th overall pick. It's a take it or leave it deal from their end.[/quote]

Good. Let them be stubborn. They need this trade more than we do... even if they cannot admit it.

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

[quote=Mattyk72;293947]Well, Adam Schefter from NFL Network is reporting that the Redskins will [B][U]NOT[/U][/B] offer up a player in addition to the 6th overall pick. It's a take it or leave it deal from their end.[/quote]

Nice! that's just what i was lookin for.
I was thinkin today how this thing might shake out if Briggs decides to pull a D.Branch. I wonder what they'd let him go for during the season? I get the feeling from what everyone says about the Bears org. that it might come to that, him holding out & the Bears dealing him to the highest bidder during the season.

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

Its frustrating that the skins even made this offer, which was reportedly made. I just can't see how we would give up so much to get McIntosh last year, only to basically give up on him. Come on skins, we have alot more pressing needs than LB???? It doesn't make sense.

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

On another thread, it was asserted that Danny Boy offered this trade at the owners meeting in the form we now see it.

[U][B]ASSUME FOR A MOMENT THAT IS CORRECT !!![/B][/U]

Of course the Bears should ask for more. After all, if it went down the way it was asserted on that other thread, Danny Boy set the floor for the negotiations with his offer; there's no way the Skins can go back to any counter-offer with less than they offered in the first place - - unless Danny Boy wants to look like a horse's ass to his fellow owners and football afficionados. [Remenber, Danny NEVER likes to look like a horse's ass even though he does do that more than once in a while...] :doh:

So, the Bears will counter with some offer to try to get more and then the REAL acumen of the Skins' FO as negotiators will come to view. How do they respond? Do they pull their current offer off the table? Do they make it a "take-it-or-leave-it proposition"? If the Bears want Marshall, do they counter with Rocky - - or vice-versa?

The deal as it stands now would be a HUGE bargain for the Skins - - if they actually needed another linebacker which they [U][B]do not[/B][/U]. For the value of a mid-first round pick, they would be getting a Pro Bowl quality linebacker. That's a good deal.

So, when the Bears ask for more - - as they damned well should - - how much more should the Skins be willing to fork over to get a Pro Bowl linebacker when that is NOT their current most pressing need by a longshot?

Suppose the Bears ask for next year's first round pick too? :nono:

How about next year's second round pick? :confused:

How about Rocky AND Golston? :)

How about Randle-El? :thumb:

Take a deep breath and try to think about all this without emotion because that's how the Bears and hopefully the Skins' FO folks are going to do this...

My hope is that they make the current offer a "take-it-or-leave-it" proposition with about a 72-hour deadline. Then we can move on with or without Lance Briggs in town.


:bdh:

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

Why are so many people ready to give up on Marshall? I would say that he has more value than Rocky or Golston at this point.

I would give them Montgomery and that is it. We are doing them a favor by taking this guy off their hands.

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

[QUOTE=sportscurmudgeon;293977]On another thread, it was asserted that Danny Boy offered this trade at the owners meeting in the form we now see it.

[U][B]ASSUME FOR A MOMENT THAT IS CORRECT !!![/B][/U]

Of course the Bears should ask for more. After all, if it went down the way it was asserted on that other thread, Danny Boy set the floor for the negotiations with his offer; there's no way the Skins can go back to any counter-offer with less than they offered in the first place - - unless Danny Boy wants to look like a horse's ass to his fellow owners and football afficionados. [Remenber, Danny NEVER likes to look like a horse's ass even though he does do that more than once in a while...] :doh:

So, the Bears will counter with some offer to try to get more and then the REAL acumen of the Skins' FO as negotiators will come to view. How do they respond? Do they pull their current offer off the table? Do they make it a "take-it-or-leave-it proposition"? If the Bears want Marshall, do they counter with Rocky - - or vice-versa?

The deal as it stands now would be a HUGE bargain for the Skins - - if they actually needed another linebacker which they [U][B]do not[/B][/U]. For the value of a mid-first round pick, they would be getting a Pro Bowl quality linebacker. That's a good deal.

So, when the Bears ask for more - - as they damned well should - - how much more should the Skins be willing to fork over to get a Pro Bowl linebacker when that is NOT their current most pressing need by a longshot?

Suppose the Bears ask for next year's first round pick too? :nono:

How about next year's second round pick? :confused:

How about Rocky AND Golston? :)

How about Randle-El? :thumb:

Take a deep breath and try to think about all this without emotion because that's how the Bears and hopefully the Skins' FO folks are going to do this...

My hope is that they make the current offer a "take-it-or-leave-it" proposition with about a 72-hour deadline. Then we can move on with or without Lance Briggs in town.


:bdh:[/QUOTE]

I agree with ya SC! I just really hope we don't do something stupid by offering up any players along with the draft pick.

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

[QUOTE=Grim21Reaper;293983]Why are so many people ready to give up on Marshall? I would say that he has more value than Rocky or Golston at this point.

I would give them Montgomery and that is it. We are doing them a favor by taking this guy off their hands.[/QUOTE]

Rocky's value is high primarily because of what was given up to get him in the first place.

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

What's wrong with waiting a year for Briggs if we want him so bad? There is no long term deal from Chitown in the works, won't he be a FA after this season unless they franchise him again?

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

Also, if you're the Bears the LAST thing you want are more of our defenders from last year. They'd be taking a page right out of our terrible offseason moves playbook. Remember last year we got all hot to trot about a couple of woebegone San Fransico 49rs?

Net pick up: Brandon Lloyd and Andre Carter.

Ouch.

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

[quote=TenandSix:Unacceptable;293990]Also, if you're the Bears the LAST thing you want are more of our defenders from last year. They'd be taking a page right out of our terrible offseason moves playbook. Remember last year we got all hot to trot about a couple of woebegone San Fransico 49rs?

Net pick up: Brandon Lloyd and Andre Carter.

Ouch.[/quote]

but andre carter lead the team in sacks

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;293991]but andre carter lead the team in sacks[/quote]

Double Ouch

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

[quote=TenandSix:Unacceptable;293992]Double Ouch[/quote]

and we had a six way tie for interceptions i think

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

[quote=Grim21Reaper;293983]Why are so many people ready to give up on Marshall? I would say that he has more value than Rocky or Golston at this point.

I would give them Montgomery and that is it. We are doing them a favor by taking this guy off their hands.[/quote]I don't think you can justify trading for a pro bowl linebacker as "doing them a favor."

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

[quote=GTripp0012;293994]I don't think you can justify trading for a pro bowl linebacker as "doing them a favor."[/quote]

true but i think we should scrap the briggs deal
give rocky a chance at starting and keep golston in the rotation with griffin and sign ian scott and then either draft gaines adams or laron landry

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

Rather keep Marshall than Rocky or Golston just because he is a starter, but want us to keep them all to be honest. Rocky hasn't played a heck of a lot to just deal Marshall away. Even though Briggs might have better stats in Chicago, he still might not be a good fit in DC. Keep all of our guys put and kill the deal.

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

how does drafting a safety help our defense. if we were going to draft a safety with the 6 pick we might as well trade it for briggs. if we keep it we need to trade down or draft andersen,branch,or okoye

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;293996]true but i think we should scrap the briggs deal
give rocky a chance at starting and keep golston in the rotation with griffin and sign ian scott and then either draft gaines adams or laron landry[/quote]I agree.

Competition is a good thing. We seem to be so afraid of it.

Let Rocky and Marshall fight it out. You save so much money over Briggs in doing so.

I'm shocked that Ian Scott is still unsigned. He'd be a fine addition to any team, and we certainly have the need at the position, but I'd pass on him. Let's save our money. Inevitably, there will be a better DT on the open market next year. Lets take advantage of the fact that Salave'a still has a year left on his deal and milk him for all he's worth. If he just can't go anymore, play the rookie I'm assuming we are going to take.

We very well could make a big signing on the DL next offseason, but certainly we will be reevalutating our needs between now and then.

Laron Landry only makes sense if we can get a trade down AND have decided to give up on Sean Taylor. If we are committed to Taylor, Landry makes little sense.

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

[quote=GTripp0012;293994]I don't think you can justify trading for a pro bowl linebacker as "doing them a favor."[/quote]

Letting them move up to the 6th pick and taking a problem off their hands is doing them a favor in my book. I don't see anyone else beating down their door to take him off their hands. If they don't trade him they are looking at a locker room disaster next season.

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

[quote=Grim21Reaper;294002]Letting them move up to the 6th pick and taking a problem off their hands is doing them a favor in my book. I don't see anyone else beating down their door to take him off their hands. If they don't trade him they are looking at a locker room disaster next season.[/quote]Somehow, I don't think a group of 52 paid professionals will allow one really good player to ruin everything. Quite the contrary. They are much better off with him.

We are much better off without him.

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

[quote=Grim21Reaper;294002]Letting them move up to the 6th pick and taking a problem off their hands is doing them a favor in my book. I don't see anyone else beating down their door to take him off their hands. If they don't trade him they are looking at a locker room disaster next season.[/quote]

Sadly I agree with Grim. We are doing them a favor by taking away their problem.

Beside that we are screwing ourselves up by paying so much for Briggs and screwing over Rocky who we have invested quite a bit in.

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

[quote=hooskins;294005]Sadly I agree with Grim. We are doing them a favor by taking away their problem.

Beside that we are screwing ourselves up by paying so much for Briggs and screwing over Rocky who we have invested quite a bit in.[/quote]It's really a bad trade for both teams. The Bears don't have a use for the No. 6 pick. They don't have a Briggs replacement on the roster.

So Angelo won't be able to accept the 31 and Briggs for the 6th. He's too smart, too patient, and it hurts his defense far too much. It makes sense that he's doing his due dilligence and requesting a trade that benefits his team. This trade just won't be possible without at least one side getting royally screwed.

Look, I don't know where the Lance Briggs is a headcase faction arose from, but nothing could be further from the truth. Contract negotiations are tricky, and he's simply saying what his agent tells him to to get him the most money.

The proposed deal by us hurts all parties involved except Rosenhaus. Fitting.

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

I hated this deal from the git go...but they have balls asking for more. They have a player who does not want to play for them and plans on sitting out until at least week 10. How the f do they have leverage here? Tell them to go pound sand!

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;294001]I'm shocked that Ian Scott is still unsigned. He'd be a fine addition to any team, and we certainly have the need at the position, but I'd pass on him. Inevitably, there will be a better DT on the open market next year.[/QUOTE]

Like who? That's one position I've found teams like to have stick around unless coaches and general managers truly think they're done -- like Warren Sapp. Even still, a "better" defensive linemen who is on the free agent market will command top dollar, so much so that we may not be in running depending on how our cap situation shakes out.

As far as Ian Scott goes, I've never heard of him anywhere but here at The Warpath. Don't you think if he was that good he'd have been snatched up by now? Otherwise, the longer he sits there with no interest, if the Redskins do sign him, it would look more like another Brandon Noble-type has-been acquisition that ultimately won't help us.

That the Redskins have up till now shown no interest doesn't speak well -- either he's that bad, or institutionally speaking, the front office simply refuses to address their needs at that position. (Assuming of course, they even recognize there's a problem with the front four). There's a part of me that thinks this front office believes they've already solved the problem on the D-line with last year's draft selections of Kedric Golston and Anthony Montgomery.

Let's hope that's not the case.

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

[quote=Beemnseven;294008]Like who? That's one position I've found teams like to have stick around unless coaches and general managers truly think they're done -- like Warren Sapp. Even still, a "better" defensive linemen who is on the free agent market will command top dollar, so much so that we may not be in running depending on how our cap situation shakes out.

As far as Ian Scott goes, I've never heard of him anywhere but here at The Warpath. Don't you think if he was that good he'd have been snatched up by now? Otherwise, the longer he sits there with no interest, if the Redskins do sign him, it would look more like another Brandon Noble-type has-been acquisition that ultimately won't help us.

That the Redskins have up till now shown no interest doesn't speak well -- either he's that bad, or institutionally speaking, the front office simply refuses to address their needs at that position. (Assuming of course, they even recognize there's a problem with the front four). There's a part of me that thinks this front office believes they've already solved the problem on the D-line with last year's draft selections of Kedric Golston and Anthony Montgomery.

Let's hope that's not the case.[/quote]Well, Ian Scott played well enough in Chicago to keep Tank Johnson, a 2nd rounder, from cracking the starting lineup in his first 3 seasons (even prior to his legal issues). I'm very shocked he isn't signed yet, I'm guessing it has to do with his price tag since KC signed Alfonzo Boone, the Bears' 4th DT, a clearly inferior player to Scott.

He's going to sign somewhere and improve their defensive line. I just think the money would be better off saved than spent right now. More veterans on the DL are not what we need.

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

Bears havesome balls to ask for Marshall as well!!! No deal. Unless we get thier 2nd and 4th in this draft and we get thier 1st[31st] and they get our 1st[6th] with Marshall going to the bears and we get Briggs. Brings and moving down in the draft and giving up marshall as well is just bad all the way round. If we take that deal we need a new owner and we need a GM.

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

[quote=GTripp0012;294001]I agree.

Competition is a good thing. We seem to be so afraid of it.

Let Rocky and Marshall fight it out. You save so much money over Briggs in doing so.

I'm shocked that Ian Scott is still unsigned. He'd be a fine addition to any team, and we certainly have the need at the position, but I'd pass on him. Let's save our money. Inevitably, there will be a better DT on the open market next year. Lets take advantage of the fact that Salave'a still has a year left on his deal and milk him for all he's worth. If he just can't go anymore, play the rookie I'm assuming we are going to take.

We very well could make a big signing on the DL next offseason, but certainly we will be reevalutating our needs between now and then.

Laron Landry only makes sense if we can get a trade down AND have decided to give up on Sean Taylor. If we are committed to Taylor, Landry makes little sense.[/quote]

if we trade down and the big 3 defensive lineman are gone why not pair him with taylor man this draft would be so much easier if we had a 2nd rd pick way to go gibbs pissing it away like that

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

[quote=Beemnseven;294008]Like who? That's one position I've found teams like to have stick around unless coaches and general managers truly think they're done -- like Warren Sapp. Even still, a "better" defensive linemen who is on the free agent market will command top dollar, so much so that we may not be in running depending on how our cap situation shakes out.

As far as Ian Scott goes, I've never heard of him anywhere but here at The Warpath. Don't you think if he was that good he'd have been snatched up by now? Otherwise, the longer he sits there with no interest, if the Redskins do sign him, it would look more like another Brandon Noble-type has-been acquisition that ultimately won't help us.

That the Redskins have up till now shown no interest doesn't speak well -- either he's that bad, or institutionally speaking, the front office simply refuses to address their needs at that position. (Assuming of course, they even recognize there's a problem with the front four). There's a part of me that thinks this front office believes they've already solved the problem on the D-line with last year's draft selections of Kedric Golston and Anthony Montgomery.

Let's hope that's not the case.[/quote]

I don't think they'd see it as solved, but the current roster has some tough decisions on it for Gibbs. Wynn & Daniels are team leaders & Gibbs' guys, and Saleva (sp?) is a Gibbs favorite as well. All these guys are old but can still contribute. The question is, can they contribute enough to earn a roster spot, especially considering what they're paid?

The only guy I think will certainly be gone is Evans. Other than him, it's a tough call on those vets.

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

Actually, a few years ago (maybe 2005) Evans signed a nice extension.

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;294043]if we trade down and the big 3 defensive lineman are gone why not pair him with taylor man this draft would be so much easier if we had a 2nd rd pick way to go gibbs pissing it away like that[/quote]The secondary is going to go as Taylor goes. If Taylor is still doing his "giant hole in the middle of the defense" impersonation, no one would ever bother to throw in Landry's direction. If Taylor comes back playing disiplined, all-pro football, what's the point of even having Landry? At that point, he becomes the weak link in the secondary due to inexperience. I see him being a non factor his first 2 years in the league, and after that, who knows if we wouldn't have found a cheap, talented safety to play next to Taylor anyway?

If we decide to give up on ST, thats one thing. But if we are going to put our confidence in him, drafting Landry is NOT the way to do that.

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

[quote=freddyg12;294047]I don't think they'd see it as solved, but the current roster has some tough decisions on it for Gibbs. Wynn & Daniels are team leaders & Gibbs' guys, and Saleva (sp?) is a Gibbs favorite as well. All these guys are old but can still contribute. The question is, can they contribute enough to earn a roster spot, especially considering what they're paid?

The only guy I think will certainly be gone is Evans. Other than him, it's a tough call on those vets.[/quote]Evans could be a temporary young solution at LDE when we address DT this year.

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;294052]Actually, a few years ago (maybe 2005) Evans signed a nice extension.[/quote]

Really? didn't realize that. I was basing my opinion on his play & the fact that Wynn & Daniels are team leaders.
Evans having an affordable deal would certainly weigh in his favor, but I don't think he's gotten better since 04.

I think Wynn & Daniels desever another go round & can still help the team. Who gets cut might be determined by which position we draft in rnd. 1: DT or DE.

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

[quote=freddyg12;294056]Really? didn't realize that. I was basing my opinion on his play & the fact that Wynn & Daniels are team leaders.
Evans having an affordable deal would certainly weigh in his favor, but I don't think he's gotten better since 04.

I think Wynn & Daniels desever another go round & can still help the team. Who gets cut might be determined by which position we draft in rnd. 1: DT or DE.[/quote]He was quite young in 2004. I would think he'd be nearing the prime of his career these next two years. Might as well get him in there.

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

i am still torn on who to draft adams,branch,okoye,or anderson

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

[quote=Mattyk72;293947]Well, Adam Schefter from NFL Network is reporting that the Redskins will [B][U]NOT[/U][/B] offer up a player in addition to the 6th overall pick. It's a take it or leave it deal from their end.[/quote]


Hope that's the case.

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

Hope springs eternal. According to the Times, The 'Skins are not willing to consider any counteroffers by the Bears:

[quote]The Redskins, who offered the No. 6 overall pick to the Bears for Briggs and the No. 31 pick last week, have been in a waiting mode until the Bears decided on a plan.
"[Angelo] wants more than what they're offering," the source said.
In a development last night, it might not matter what the Bears counter with. The NFL Network reported the Redskins' proposal was their final offer and that talks have stalled. [/quote]

[URL="http://www.washingtontimes.com/sports/20070403-124843-5547r.htm"]Bears' proposal expected today*-*Sports*-*The Washington Times, America's Newspaper[/URL]

EDIT: Matty beat me to this a while ago in the thread. Guess that's what I get for not reading the thread. [sheepish grin]

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

Yeah, although I didn't think "the trade" was necessarily bad from a straight value perspective, I was generally opposed to the trade for reasons that have been hashed out through the eight million previous threads. When rumours started flying that the bears wanted more, I was flat out against anything other then the original offer.

Hopefully, "take it or leave it" is, in fact, the final offer. If the bears want more, find somebody else. Maybe, just maybe, Gibbs & the Danster realize that drafting players, as opposed to pursuing bright shiny toys, may be important.

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

Oh well. Let those cheap bastards roll around in their own mess. They will not get a better deal than the Redskins offer.

Re: The latest on Briggs: Bears want more
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;294094]Yeah, although I didn't think "the trade" was necessarily bad from a straight value perspective, I was generally opposed to the trade for reasons that have been hashed out through the eight million previous threads. When rumours started flying that the bears wanted more, I was flat out against anything other then the original offer.

Hopefully, "take it or leave it" is, in fact, the final offer. If the bears want more, find somebody else. Maybe, just maybe, Gibbs & the Danster realize that drafting players, as opposed to pursuing bright shiny toys, may be important.[/quote]

I think Gibbs realizes it (Finally, it took him a few years). The Danny probably needs Joe to explain it to him like a 3rd grader to get him to realize his idiocy.