How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

Ok guys Ihad to start a new post to give you guys some inside info on how the deal started. Vic Cairucci was just on Moving the Chains about 10 minutes ago, and was sitting next to Daniel Synder last night at a bar in Arizona. Then in walked Lance Briggs and Drew Rosenhaus. The two parties started talking and within minutes The Dan told DR that he was willing to give the bears the 6th overall pick to the bears for Lance Briggs and the Bears 31st overall pick. Within minutes Drew was on the phone with the Bears D'Angelo and Lovie Smith. While that was going on The Dan was desperately trying to find Joe Gibbs. After Dan sent someone after Joe he turned to Lance and told him that they should start talking and getting to know one another.

This is where the story ends because that's all the knowledge that Vic C. had for TRock and Pat Kerwin.

So this is all Dan Synders doing and was done in a bar. So I guess we know why some bad deals get done by the Washington FO now. If the Dan makes this deal go through I want to know what his blood alchohol level was at the time.

The Bears at this time sound very interested and we might pull it off. Although I have to add that I don't know what Joe Gibbs answer was to this bar induced conversation, and on a personel note I hope that this is not the usual practice of how deals get started.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

So Danny offered up this deal without notifying Gibbs first?

I wonder if Vic knows if the conversation took place before or after Danny's fifth Long Island Iced Tea?

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

I don't know. But yes THE DAN did this on his own.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

I wonder if DS has been doing business without consulting him the whole time...

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

One other thing I forgot to add was that after Drew Rosenhaus spoke with the Bears so did Vinny Cerrato. I mean I've said somethings and gotten real excited over deals while I was drinking, but then when the buzz wears off common sense and buissness judgement come into play. I hope its the same here or better yet I hope JG didn't get to enthusiastic about it.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

I wish I could be drunk at a bar and talking trades with players, owners, agents, etc.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

My question is if this is true how did the dan do so well in his other money matters. Looking at how well he has done in other things we all should hope to do so well. Still we need a extra pick in this deal to be fair! Was the bartender a Bears fan?

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;291751]I wish I could be drunk at a bar and talking trades with players, owners, agents, etc.[/QUOTE]That is why there is fantasy football! For us poor guys!

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[quote=RedskinPete;291753]That is why there is fantasy football! For us poor guys![/quote]

LOL

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

No wonder this deal reeks so effing bad.

I'm starting to get pissed!

:madani:

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

ESPN radio just announced that the deal has officially been offered. Our 6th for Briggs and their 31st
[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2814052]ESPN.com - NFL - Agent: Bears' Briggs could go to Redskins in trade[/url]

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[QUOTE=RedskinPete;291752]My question is if this is true how did the dan do so well in his other money matters. Looking at how well he has done in other things we all should hope to do so well. Still we need a extra pick in this deal to be fair! Was the bartender a Bears fan?[/QUOTE]

Then where are all the Lombardi trophies he's been hiding?

Doing well running a Starbucks doesn't necessarily mean you'll do equally as well in a Chess Tournament.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

damn... we REALLY need a GM bad if LDS is boozing up and making insane deals by himself. so much for not meddling.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[quote=That Guy;291787]damn... we REALLY need a GM bad if LDS is boozing up and making insane deals by himself. so much for not meddling.[/quote]

Even if we had a GM, I'll bet he'd still do it...

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

Nothing has been officially proposed yet so let's not get too crazy. I still think this deal is 100% BS.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;291777]Then where are all the Lombardi trophies he's been hiding?

Doing well running a Starbucks doesn't necessarily mean you'll do equally as well in a Chess Tournament.[/QUOTE] We should hope to do as well as he has. But so far his football in wins and loses has been a failure. As for making money for the Redskins he has made a boat load!!! Will that end soon if they don't start winning...no we love the Redskins and football. Jack kent Cook is looking pretty good now!

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

I am hoping this deal is total BS. In fact...f this deal, I smell it!

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[quote=Hog1;291762]ESPN radio just announced that the deal has officially been offered. Our 6th for Briggs and their 31st
[URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2814052"]ESPN.com - NFL - Agent: Bears' Briggs could go to Redskins in trade[/URL][/quote]

This article doesn't say anything about a deal being officially on the table.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;291791]Nothing has been officially proposed yet so let's not get too crazy. I still think this deal is 100% BS.[/QUOTE]I really hope you're right. The thought of making this deal has me so mad and frustrated that I just slapped an office temp.
I used to stand up for Danny Boy quite a bit because I felt like he did want to win and did want the team to do well, but if it's true that he came up with this BS over martinis and it goes through the way it stands now I may have to egg his house, or at least his front gate.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

Even if this deal happens I don't understand why people are getting so crazy about it. If we can still come out of the draft with a quality defensive lineman I think this is a win/win scenario for both teams.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

I guess Joe was into the deal. Although it did start last night in a bar. I'm guessing deals get done like this sometimes. I just don't understand why we are making his offer?

If it happens here one of Joe Gibbs first few lines at the press conference... " I really like to say when you have a chance to add a player of his claiber you do it."

I mean come on we don't need him right now there are other issues that they can address with this pick.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

this is absolutely ridiculous. I hate Danielle Snyder

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[quote=Mattyk72;291791]Nothing has been officially proposed yet so let's not get too crazy. I still think this deal is 100% BS.[/quote]

I pray that you're right. But as much as Pastabelly dumps on us, he's usually pretty solid with the inside info.

Hopefully he's understating what we'd get in such a trade scenario. Maybe, just maybe, he's leaving out the part about us getting a 3rd round pick in addition.

Or best of all, he's just completely wrong about the whole thing.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[quote=Mattyk72;291806]Even if this deal happens I don't understand why people are getting so crazy about it. If we can still come out of the draft with a quality defensive lineman I think this is a win/win scenario for both teams.[/quote]

Well while we're discussing the if's, just think what we could get in a trade package if Adrian Peterson falls to us at 6.

It's just a retarded deal. It doesn't fill a glaring need, and it buries one of our promising young prospects (Rocky) in the depth chart.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

Normally I hate to cite PFT, but this actually makes sense with a nice dig on Pasta Belly:

BRIGGS-TO-'SKINS MAKES NO SENSE

Apart from the fact that Bears linebacker Lance Briggs became a star in a pure Tampa 2 scheme that the Redskins don't run, there's another reason why it makes no sense, in our view, for the 'Skins to add Briggs to the team.

With two big-money free agent linebackers -- Marcus Washington and London Fletcher-Baker -- already in the starting lineup, the 'Skins wouldn't be getting the best return on their investment in Washington, Fletcher-Baker, and Briggs.

Why? Because a defense has three linebackers on the field roughly half of the time.

In the nickel and dime defenses, linebackers are replaced by defensive backs. Teams use the nickel whenever the opponent brings in a third receiver. Typically, that happens in second and long or third and more than three or four yards.

At a time when the 'Skins are still thought to be interested in adding Dre' Bly to a corps of cornerbacks that includes Carlos Rogers and Fred Smoot, it's simply not a good investment of cap dollars to write a big bonus check to Briggs, unless the team is thinking about parting ways with Washington and his base salary of $4 million in 2007.

Meanwhile, ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli is once again creating the impression that he broke the story of a possible trade of Briggs to the 'Skins, even though Jay Glazer of FOXSports.com and Adam Schefter of NFL Network had the story well in advance.

(Free advice to Len: With the departure of Michael Irvin and the "reassignment" of Joe Theismann, the folks in Bristol are demonstrating a willingness to heed and to respond to accurate and reasonable external criticism of their employees.)

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[quote=Mattyk72;291806]Even if this deal happens I don't understand why people are getting so crazy about it. If we can still come out of the draft with a quality defensive lineman I think this is a win/win scenario for both teams.[/quote]The problem is just as you state it. It's now an "if" situation if this deal goes through instead of a "who".

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[quote=Mattyk72;291791]Nothing has been officially proposed yet so let's not get too crazy. I still think this deal is 100% BS.[/quote]

I hope you're right like you usually are. :)

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[quote=Mattyk72;291820]Normally I hate to cite PFT, but this actually makes sense with a nice dig on Pasta Belly:

BRIGGS-TO-'SKINS MAKES NO SENSE

Apart from the fact that Bears linebacker Lance Briggs became a star in a pure Tampa 2 scheme that the Redskins don't run, there's another reason why it makes no sense, in our view, for the 'Skins to add Briggs to the team.

With two big-money free agent linebackers -- Marcus Washington and London Fletcher-Baker -- already in the starting lineup, the 'Skins wouldn't be getting the best return on their investment in Washington, Fletcher-Baker, and Briggs.

Why? Because a defense has three linebackers on the field roughly half of the time.

In the nickel and dime defenses, linebackers are replaced by defensive backs. Teams use the nickel whenever the opponent brings in a third receiver. Typically, that happens in second and long or third and more than three or four yards.

At a time when the 'Skins are still thought to be interested in adding Dre' Bly to a corps of cornerbacks that includes Carlos Rogers and Fred Smoot, it's simply not a good investment of cap dollars to write a big bonus check to Briggs, unless the team is thinking about parting ways with Washington and his base salary of $4 million in 2007.

Meanwhile, ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli is once again creating the impression that he broke the story of a possible trade of Briggs to the 'Skins, even though Jay Glazer of FOXSports.com and Adam Schefter of NFL Network had the story well in advance.

(Free advice to Len: With the departure of Michael Irvin and the "reassignment" of Joe Theismann, the folks in Bristol are demonstrating a willingness to heed and to respond to accurate and reasonable external criticism of their employees.)[/quote]

LOL, at least they took a shot at the fat ass.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;291806]Even if this deal happens I don't understand why people are getting so crazy about it. If we can still come out of the draft with a quality defensive lineman I think this is a win/win scenario for both teams.[/QUOTE]

I think it's because some people don't know how to do anything but complain. It's like the folks who keep bitching about how we never re-sign our own guys in spite of all the re-signings we've completed this offseason. That mentality will only change when the team starts winning, if even then.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;291827]I think it's because some people don't know how to do anything but complain. It's like the folks who keep bitching about how we never re-sign our own guys in spite of all the re-signings we've completed this offseason. That mentality will only change when the team starts winning, if even then.[/QUOTE]So you would be happy with this deal and think it would make the team better?

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[quote=mlmpetert;291811]this is absolutely ridiculous. I hate Danielle Snyder[/quote]


What he said. I wonder if there is anything Drew Rosenhaus could not sell the Danny. What the hell is going on in that relationship? Do they have some sort of weird bond fostered by the fact they are both under 5'2"?? Drew just walks into a bar and within a couple of minutes Snyder's given up the 6th overall pick. Why does that SOB make us the laughingstock of the league . . . HELL at least Al Davis won a couple of Super Bowls before he lost his mind! As long as DS is making boatloads of cash I guess he'll just keep pissing it away. Wish John Kent Cooke had won the ownership battle!!!!!

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;291827]I think it's because some people don't know how to do anything but complain. It's like the folks who keep bitching about how we never re-sign our own guys in spite of all the re-signings we've completed this offseason. That mentality will only change when the team starts winning, if even then.[/QUOTE]

In this case, I disagree 100%. You can't tell me that if we were to, right now, trade the #6 for the #31 overall pick and Lance Briggs that it would not be a dumb trade. The 6th pick was three weeks ago worth Dre Bly' a 1st, 2nd and 3rd round draft pick. Lance Briggs was a third round draft pick. I think peoples biggest gripe is that we should be drafting 2-3 starting calibur guys a year. I mean we draft guys well, we just dont have any picks. In addition, its highly likley that on April 28th, that #6 pick is going to get much better offers, especially if a few certain people fall too #6.

Furthermore....we just wasted two freaking second round picks on a linebacker at the same positoin 11 months ago, and we have a guy in Lamar Marshall, who has been a pretty solid starter for us for the last 3 years and excelled in 2005 and was one of the defenses best players. Unless were changing the entire defensive scheme to be a 3-4, why would we add someone else to that linebacking core?? It's just stupid.

Finally, we can only resign Ethan Albright and Ade Jimoh (not that I dislike the guys and Albright is probaboly the most under-rated player on the team), but we can only resign them so many times to make me forget about losing guys like Fred Smoot (1st time), Antonio Peirce, and Derrick Dockery or Chris Cooley if that dosent go down next year. I'm glad we re-upped Sellers/Thomas, but they still had time left on their deals too. Its our starters that people are upset about. We didnt re-sign any of them this year.

People arent just complaining for the sake of complaining. They are complaining because its deals like this that made us a dysfunctional franchise to begin with. Dont take my word for it, go re-listen to Clinton Portis on the John Thompson show after the season, the players dont like it either. I'm not saying you cant do a deal like this every now and then, but our front office does it just for the sake of doing it. Adding Lance Briggs to this football team and losing that #6 pick makes us a worse football team.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[QUOTE=SC Skins Fan;291842]What he said. I wonder if there is anything Drew Rosenhaus could not sell the Danny. What the hell is going on in that relationship? Do they have some sort of weird bond fostered by the fact they are both under 5'2"?? Drew just walks into a bar and within a couple of minutes Snyder's given up the 6th overall pick. Why does that SOB make us the laughingstock of the league . . . HELL at least Al Davis won a couple of Super Bowls before he lost his mind! As long as DS is making boatloads of cash I guess he'll just keep pissing it away. Wish John Kent Cooke had won the ownership battle!!!!![/QUOTE] Were would we be if John Kent Cook had kept the team? That be fun to go back and see? Is there a movie there?

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;291827]I think it's because some people don't know how to do anything but complain. It's like the folks who keep bitching about how we never re-sign our own guys in spite of all the re-signings we've completed this offseason. That mentality will only change when the team starts winning, if even then.[/QUOTE]

I tend to agree. But I am not a big complainer and I think this deal will end up stinking for us for almost every reason stated on this board. I am 100% opposed to it. I believe that some serious rationalization is going on around here right now.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[QUOTE=Gmanc711;291846]In this case, I disagree 100%. You can't tell me that if we were to, right now, trade the #6 for the #31 overall pick and Lance Briggs that it would not be a dumb trade. The 6th pick was three weeks ago worth Dre Bly' a 1st, 2nd and 3rd round draft pick. Lance Briggs was a third round draft pick. I think peoples biggest gripe is that we should be drafting 2-3 starting calibur guys a year. I mean we draft guys well, we just dont have any picks. In addition, its highly likley that on April 28th, that #6 pick is going to get much better offers, especially if a few certain people fall too #6.

Furthermore....we just wasted two freaking second round picks on a linebacker at the same positoin 11 months ago, and we have a guy in Lamar Marshall, who has been a pretty solid starter for us for the last 3 years and excelled in 2005 and was one of the defenses best players. Unless were changing the entire defensive scheme to be a 3-4, why would we add someone else to that linebacking core?? It's just stupid.

Finally, we can only resign Ethan Albright and Ade Jimoh (not that I dislike the guys and Albright is probaboly the most under-rated player on the team), but we can only resign them so many times to make me forget about losing guys like Fred Smoot (1st time), Antonio Peirce, and Derrick Dockery or Chris Cooley if that dosent go down next year. I'm glad we re-upped Sellers/Thomas, but they still had time left on their deals too. Its our starters that people are upset about. We didnt re-sign any of them this year.

People arent just complaining for the sake of complaining. They are complaining because its deals like this that made us a dysfunctional franchise to begin with. Dont take my word for it, go re-listen to Clinton Portis on the John Thompson show after the season, the players dont like it either. I'm not saying you cant do a deal like this every now and then, but our front office does it just for the sake of doing it. Adding Lance Briggs to this football team and losing that #6 pick makes us a worse football team.[/QUOTE]
Here here!

It's like this team revels in making "daring moves" and then sits back and enjoys the spoils of said moves while saying "I told you so" to everyone who bashed them. Except these moves almost never work out and we continue to stink it up. With the 6th pick we could concievably draft 3(maybe 4) quality players who could start for us over the next 5 years. This deal gives us one, dubiously good, LB and one pick with which to make an impact. The idea that Briggs is a surer thing is somewhat of a stretch. We're talking about a 3rd round draft pick who played in a great scheme with an immensely talented group of players around him. Now we're going to take him out said scheme and put him with a less talenetd group and pay him ridiculous money. I don't see how this plays out well for us really.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[QUOTE=ArtMonkDrillz;291841]So you would be happy with this deal and think it would make the team better?[/QUOTE]

Well as I've said [url=http://www.thewarpath.net/291585-post62.html]here[/url] and [url=http://www.thewarpath.net/291563-post50.html]here[/url] and probably other places my concern with the deal is a.) shouldn't we get more picks and b.) why did we trade up to get Rocky and then sign Fletch only to add another linebacker. Granted, we're talking Lance Briggs here but still

I don't have a problem with people opposing the trade. Like I said, I still lean against it. All I'm saying is, to Matty's question, I think a lot of people's reason for opposing the trade isn't "well what about Rocky" or "can we afford to pay Briggs, what does this mean for Coooley" or "is Briggs a system back" or anything like that, it's just "well, it's the Redskins so it must be a bad move."

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

there must have been a ZJ at the end of the night for this to go through

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[quote=Gmanc711;291846]In this case, I disagree 100%. You can't tell me that if we were to, right now, trade the #6 for the #31 overall pick and Lance Briggs that it would not be a dumb trade. The 6th pick was three weeks ago worth Dre Bly' a 1st, 2nd and 3rd round draft pick. Lance Briggs was a third round draft pick. I think peoples biggest gripe is that we should be drafting 2-3 starting calibur guys a year. I mean we draft guys well, we just dont have any picks. In addition, its highly likley that on April 28th, that #6 pick is going to get much better offers, especially if a few certain people fall too #6.

Furthermore....we just wasted two freaking second round picks on a linebacker at the same positoin 11 months ago, and we have a guy in Lamar Marshall, who has been a pretty solid starter for us for the last 3 years and excelled in 2005 and was one of the defenses best players. Unless were changing the entire defensive scheme to be a 3-4, why would we add someone else to that linebacking core?? It's just stupid.

Finally, we can only resign Ethan Albright and Ade Jimoh (not that I dislike the guys and Albright is probaboly the most under-rated player on the team), but we can only resign them so many times to make me forget about losing guys like Fred Smoot (1st time), Antonio Peirce, and Derrick Dockery or Chris Cooley if that dosent go down next year. I'm glad we re-upped Sellers/Thomas, but they still had time left on their deals too. Its our starters that people are upset about. We didnt re-sign any of them this year.

People arent just complaining for the sake of complaining. They are complaining because its deals like this that made us a dysfunctional franchise to begin with. Dont take my word for it, go re-listen to Clinton Portis on the John Thompson show after the season, the players dont like it either. I'm not saying you cant do a deal like this every now and then, but our front office does it just for the sake of doing it. Adding Lance Briggs to this football team and losing that #6 pick makes us a worse football team.[/quote]

Terrific post.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

The Redskins get unfairly criticized for making some moves (e.g., 13th for Coles, Coles for Moss, signing Griffin, etc), but this one is definately worthy of criticism. I think it's a debatable move, but no matter how I spin it, I personally think it's an awful move.

Re: How the Lance Briggs deal started.
 

[quote=SmootSmack;291857]Well as I've said [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/291585-post62.html"]here[/URL] and [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/291563-post50.html"]here[/URL] and probably other places my concern with the deal is a.) shouldn't we get more picks and b.) why did we trade up to get Rocky and then sign Fletch only to add another linebacker. Granted, we're talking Lance Briggs here but still

I don't have a problem with people opposing the trade. Like I said, I still lean against it. All I'm saying is, to Matty's question, I think a lot of people's reason for opposing the trade isn't "well what about Rocky" or "can we afford to pay Briggs, what does this mean for Coooley" or "is Briggs a system back" or anything like that, [B]it's just "well, it's the Redskins so it must be a bad move."[/B][/quote]

I don't think so. I've seen tons of posts in this thread and in the 200+ post one stating why this is a bad deal. There's tons of real reasons and tons of substantiation behind all of them.

In this case, this is no knee-jerk reaction. People are mainly bothered by the fact that we have glaring needs at D line, and this trade severely compromises our ability to satisfy that need.