NFL Network: Bears' Briggs, 31st Pick for Skins' 6th Pick?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

I should have been more clear. "Later in the draft" i meant the 31st pick for the DL. something in the works, Springs being dealt pick or player, Betts, Portis being dealt for picks. A lot of rumors fly about 1 of our RB's getting dealt on draft day. Or, it could just be one of those players you just can't pass up on, for basically nothing. WE ARE GETTING A 26 YEAR OLD STUD, FOR NOTHING! WE STILL GET TO KEEP A 1st ROUND PICK. I just can't see whats wrong with that. We are not losing picks, we are gaining a stud, and still have a pick to take a lineman. seems like people think we are giving up 2nd and 3rd round picks. we still have a pick in the 1st round. not the 6th, but still the 1st round.

This point has been written here yet again, even after I remember shooting it down. This is what you get for repeating a dumb point: you sir, are a moron. We're not getting him for nothing. You do realize the difference in talent between the guys available at 6 and the guys available at 31?

Not to mention what we could get in a trade by moving down from 6 in exchange for picks. If I were a mod, I'd ban you for being retarded.

[724Skinsfan]

Snyder aces Finance 101, easily. He doesn't do so well in Management 101, particularly in regards to chapter of Team Building.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

This point has been written here yet again, even after I remember shooting it down. This is what you get for repeating a dumb point: you sir, are a moron. We're not getting him for nothing. You do realize the difference in talent between the guys available at 6 and the guys available at 31?

Not to mention what we could get in a trade by moving down from 6 in exchange for picks. If I were a mod, I'd ban you for being retarded.

seriously, is that needed? you know people are really brave on this f'n site. grow up. calling one a moron is really mature.

if you can read the point I made : franchise player require two first round picks - we are not losing a 1st round pick to aquire a franchised player. This is what I meant. 2nd, we were looking to trade down to aquire more picks. We essentially get to trade down to a late 1st and get a 26 year old LB which is worth a hole hell of a lot more than any 2nd or 3rd round player we would have drafted.

3rd - if you want to continually act like a fool you have every right to do so. But please refrain from calling me or anyone else a moron. that is totally uncalled for and childish. I would expect everyone here can have a civil conversation regarding a potential trade without getting into a pissing match. I would hope a "MOD" would certainly not act that way, and also the other "MODS" take notice of your insults. apology accepted.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

seriously, is that needed? you know people are really brave on this f'n site. grow up. calling one a moron is really mature.

if you can read the point I made : franchise player require two first round picks - we are not losing a 1st round pick to aquire a franchised player. This is what I meant. 2nd, we were looking to trade down to aquire more picks. We essentially get to trade down to a late 1st and get a 26 year old LB which is worth a hole hell of a lot more than any 2nd or 3rd round player we would have drafted.

3rd - if you want to continually act like a fool you have every right to do so. But please refrain from calling me or anyone else a moron. that is totally uncalled for and childish. I would expect everyone here can have a civil conversation regarding a potential trade without getting into a pissing match. I would hope a "MOD" would certainly not act that way, and also the other "MODS" take notice of your insults. apology accepted.

I tend to agree with you but as he pointed out he did totaly refute your statement and you blew right on past it and didn't seem to even notice. I can understand his frustration. Lots of people do that around here, as well as many other boards.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

if you can read the point I made : franchise player require two first round picks - we are not losing a 1st round pick to aquire a franchised player. This is what I meant. 2nd, we were looking to trade down to aquire more picks. We essentially get to trade down to a late 1st and get a 26 year old LB which is worth a hole hell of a lot more than any 2nd or 3rd round player we would have drafted.

You say we're basically gaining an extra 1st round pick because we are getting a stud linebacker, but that's not what we need right now!
People around here want to trade down our pick so that we can get a defensive lineman, a guard, a safety, maybe a cornerback, maybe a tight end, and maybe another late round receiver. Another linebacker is one of the last positions that we feel like the team needs to fill right now, which means it would basically be a waste to pick/trade for one.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

You say we're basically gaining an extra 1st round pick because we are getting a stud linebacker, but that's not what we need right now!
People around here want to trade down our pick so that we can get a defensive lineman, a guard, a safety, maybe a cornerback, maybe a tight end, and maybe another late round receiver. Another linebacker is one of the last positions that we feel like the team needs to fill right now, which means it would basically be a waste to pick/trade for one.

I am not saying we get an extra 1st round pick. I am saying we dont lose a 1st round pick. what we do lose is the potential to trade down and get additional picks, maybe 2nd and 3rd to draft DLINE, OLINE, CB whatever. My opinion is : we still have a 1st rounder - get a player that will be a TON better that what we would have drafted in the 2nd or 3rd round. Our 1st rounders take 2 or 3 years to get on the field with this staff. So why not get someone who is going to play now. We have signed depth to the Oline in the offseason, signed depth for the secondary, we have receivers. we could use some depth at TE. I just see this as a pretty good move for once.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

I am not saying we get an extra 1st round pick. I am saying we dont lose a 1st round pick.

This statement and what it infers is that all 1st round picks are equal, which they clearly are not. It doesn't matter that we are keeping a 1st rounder. We are losing value there plain and simple. Now the relative values of those picks you can debate but don't try and say there are no differences between the 6th pick and the 31st pick. That is what you inferring with your statement and it is wrong.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

seriously, is that needed? you know people are really brave on this f'n site. grow up. calling one a moron is really mature.

if you can read the point I made : franchise player require two first round picks - we are not losing a 1st round pick to aquire a franchised player. This is what I meant. 2nd, we were looking to trade down to aquire more picks. We essentially get to trade down to a late 1st and get a 26 year old LB which is worth a hole hell of a lot more than any 2nd or 3rd round player we would have drafted.

3rd - if you want to continually act like a fool you have every right to do so. But please refrain from calling me or anyone else a moron. that is totally uncalled for and childish. I would expect everyone here can have a civil conversation regarding a potential trade without getting into a pissing match. I would hope a "MOD" would certainly not act that way, and also the other "MODS" take notice of your insults. apology accepted.

I'm not sorry, my opinion of you hasn't changed, and I still don't find you to be very intelligent.

I have no problem with your opinion in and of itself. It's fine to state it. But if I address it in a post, and then you repeat yourself again as if you never even read what I said, well that to me isn't very responsible on a board aimed at "discussion for the knowledgeable fan." If you're not addressing my point and you're just repeating yourself, you're not having much of a discussion, are you? You're just blowing hot air onto the boards without listening to the opinions of others.

Now, as for your clarified point, I addressed that one as well earlier in the thread. No franchised player is actually worth 2 first rounders. Just because the CBA says that's the price, that doesn't make the underlying player actually worth that much.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I'm not sorry, my opinion of you hasn't changed, and I still don't find you to be very intelligent.

I have no problem with your opinion in and of itself. It's fine to state it. But if I address it in a post, and then you repeat yourself again as if you never even read what I said, well that to me isn't very responsible on a board aimed at "discussion for the knowledgeable fan." If you're not addressing my point and you're just repeating yourself, you're not having much of a discussion, are you? You're just blowing hot air onto the boards without listening to the opinions of others.

Now, as for your clarified point, I addressed that one as well earlier in the thread. No franchised player is actually worth 2 first rounders. Just because the CBA says that's the price, that doesn't make the underlying player actually worth that much.

I tried to address you point in the 2nd post, maybe i didn't. as far as the franchise and what they are worth, I am referring to the CBA that says a team can ask for 2 first rounders, or a frachise player is worth 2 first rounders. Do I think franchise players are worth two 1st rounders, NO. never have. I was using that as a reference for what most teams originally expect when designating a player as franchised.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Now, as for your clarified point, I addressed that one as well earlier in the thread. No franchised player is actually worth 2 first rounders. Just because the CBA says that's the price, that doesn't make the underlying player actually worth that much.

Just for the heck of it here is what some franchise players have been traded for:

Sean Gilbert-Redskins to Panthers for two firsts (right?)

Champ Bailey-well you know how that went down

Peerless Price-Bills to Falcons for a first round pick (#23 overall)

John Abraham-Jets to Falcons for a first round pick (#29 overall)

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

if you can read the point I made : franchise player require two first round picks - we are not losing a 1st round pick to aquire a franchised player. This is what I meant. 2nd, we were looking to trade down to aquire more picks. We essentially get to trade down to a late 1st and get a 26 year old LB which is worth a hole hell of a lot more than any 2nd or 3rd round player we would have drafted.

I think this is the main bone of contention. The value of Briggs and the #31 pick is less than the value of trading from the #6 to pick up a later first round pick (presumably higher than #31) and/or a 2nd and a 3rd rounder.

Not to mention that of the weaknesses we have on defense, linebacker is the most solid set of positions we have. The help we need at positions along the D-line and at cornerback and strong safety outweigh any contributions Briggs can give us.

Then there are the salary cap implications. Briggs will wind up costing way more than the pool of draft picks we would have been able to amass. And yes, our front office hasn't exactly hit homeruns with 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round picks in the past, but at least we're moving in the right direction by using the draft for player acquisition. If we miss out with the draft picks, at least they don't cost us as much.

Also, don't discount the possibility that Briggs could be the wrong fit for our defense. As we can all easily admit, there are no "sure things" in free agency either.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

This point has been written here yet again, even after I remember shooting it down. This is what you get for repeating a dumb point: you sir, are a moron. We're not getting him for nothing. You do realize the difference in talent between the guys available at 6 and the guys available at 31?

Not to mention what we could get in a trade by moving down from 6 in exchange for picks. If I were a mod, I'd ban you for being retarded.

I agree with your general sentiments regarding the trade, but there's no need to personally attack the guy. Chill.......chill. I hate it when people get into personal attacks, causing threads to go total awry and off into a direction that no one cares about other than the two people involved.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

This point has been written here yet again, even after I remember shooting it down. This is what you get for repeating a dumb point: you sir, are a moron. We're not getting him for nothing. You do realize the difference in talent between the guys available at 6 and the guys available at 31?

Not to mention what we could get in a trade by moving down from 6 in exchange for picks. If I were a mod, I'd ban you for being retarded.

also, that does not always ring true. I believe we have all had discussions regarding players drafted in later rounds that turn out to be great players. So, yes players taken in the top 10 typically are better than the bottom 10, but its not a guarantee. We could get a quality DE or DT with the 31st pick that could be just as good, if not better than the guy drafted 25 picks ahead of him.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

also, that does not always ring true. I believe we have all had discussions regarding players drafted in later rounds that turn out to be great players. So, yes players taken in the top 10 typically are better than the bottom 10, but its not a guarantee. We could get a quality DE or DT with the 31st pick that could be just as good, if not better than the guy drafted 25 picks ahead of him.

Yeah, we COULD. And if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass when he hops.

Bottom line: the 6th pick is worth so much more than the 31st because the chances of hitting on the player is so much higher.

Your argument makes no sense.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yeah, we COULD. And if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass when he hops.

Bottom line: the 6th pick is worth so much more than the 31st because the chances of hitting on the player is so much higher.

Your argument makes no sense.

do you think I am putting the same weight on the 6th and 31st pick? I know the difference between the two.

Let me ask you this :
scenario 1 - we trade the 6th pick for a lower round 1st, 3rd, maybe a 2nd. we draft a DE or DT later in the 1st, probably between the 11th and 15th rounds. 2nd round - Oline, Safety, corner? 3rd, same needs. is that what you feel we need to do??

in the above it is not known or fact that we get more than two picks for our 6th pick. We may get a 1st and only a 2nd, at best. So, that player chosen in the 2nd, are they going to start? if we draft an Oline man - he isn't starting, corner? he isnt' starting, safety - nope not starting. nor would any 3rd round player selected.

in the trade with Chicago - we move down to the 31st and could select the same position as we would have with the 11th to 15th pick. maybe not as good, but still a 1st rounder, should be a decent player. We also get Briggs - an impact player who ultimately is way better than anyone we would have drafted in the 2nd or 3rd round. Plus, he plays right now. Gibbs isn't going to be around to watch our 2nd 3rd and 4th round players develop into stars, he wants to win now. He is going to do what ever it takes to win now.
I am not arguing with anyone. I respect all of your opinions or theories. I think you all add a different side to these discussions. I apologize to whomever it was I called an ass. that was out of line.
I just thought I should try and clear up why I think this deal is good for us. Although some of you may have shot it down earlier, i thought i would explain my thinking a little more.

or, maybe I am mentally challenged who knows.