The latest on Briggs: Bears want more

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

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

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.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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.

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.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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.

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

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.

Evans could be a temporary young solution at LDE when we address DT this year.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

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

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.