1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Create an Account or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member! Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!

Redskins want Briggs

Discussion in 'All Other Team Discussions' started by longtimefan, Mar 27, 2007.

  1. longtimefan
    Offline

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    15,605
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    Ratings Received:
    +2,517 / 76 / -14
    Packer Fan Since:
    1975
  2. porky88
    Offline

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Location:
    Title Town
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Would be a nice pickup for the Bears especially since Briggs has no long term future. I think they'd probably select Landry with that pick and then release Mike Brown in the June cut downs.

    If so I hope the Pack sign Brown to replace Manuel. Don't get your hopes up though, to much has to happen.
  3. net
    Offline

    net Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    931
    Location:
    Rhinelander
    Ratings Received:
    +45 / 19 / -0
    All this tells me is the McCaskey family hasn't turned over a new leaf.

    They are right there with the Browns in Cincinnati and Bidwells in Arizona for the cheapest SOB's in the league.

    I wonder if Ted Thompson took a seminar from them?

    They nearly pissed Lovie Smith off before being shamed into giving him a competitive contract.

    Briggs is young, tough and a really good player. So they get rid of Briggs with no one of equal ability on the roster.

    The only thing that would make a deal like this work is if Chicago then turns around and trades the pick for multiple picks later.

    Cheap and dumb. But the Packers win by extension, so I guess it's ok.
  4. warhawk
    Offline

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Location:
    Gulf Shores, Al
    Ratings Received:
    +38 / 0 / -0
    He's also no fit for the Redskins defense and they already have enough high priced LB's which get switched out for nickel and dime packages about half the defensive plays.

    If the Redskins' defensive schemes were suited for Briggs it would be one thing but what he does good they don't use.

    Looks more like the 'Skins reverting back to schizoid moves in the offseason rather than sensible ones.
  5. OregonPackFan
    Offline

    OregonPackFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    356
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    this could screw over TT's plan to get Adrian Peterson if he's available at the 6th.

    but lol, the Redskins still only have what, two draft picks?
  6. Pack93z
    Offline

    Pack93z You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Location:
    Central Wisconsin
    Ratings Received:
    +22 / 0 / -0
    The Bears or the Redskins can have him... Someone finally hit the nail on the head and published it...

    A week ago a friend of mine asked if I was sympathetic to Chicago's Lance Briggs. I told him I was not, and -- to paraphrase Terrell Owens' former publicist -- I told him there were seven million reasons why.

    As the Bears' franchise player, Briggs is entitled to $7.2 million, or 10 times what he made last season. Last time I checked, that's more than a lot of people will earn in a lifetime. But it's not more than what free-agent linebacker Adalius Thomas pulled down from New England, and that, folks, is what this is all about.

    Greed.

    Forget that Briggs is making a lot of dough. He's not making as much as he could have if he were exposed to the open market. It's not that he wants to get rich. He already is. It's that he wants to get richer -- and, I'm sorry, I don't have sympathy for someone whose complaint is that he can't afford a fleet of Rolls Royces.

    http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10094188
  7. 4thand26
    Offline

    4thand26 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,555
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    I dont blame a guy for trying to get as much money as he can - that is why we all work. However, you also cant blame the bears for franchising him and using the ground rules that were set up to try and retain him for one or two more years.

    There are rumored to be 2 more trade offers for him - Buffalo and the Giants. Should be interesting to see where he ends up-if anywhere.
  8. Pack93z
    Offline

    Pack93z You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Location:
    Central Wisconsin
    Ratings Received:
    +22 / 0 / -0
    Oh I don't blame him for trying to get paid, but to sit and complain about 7.2 million dollars for a year worth of work... I DONT WANT YOU ON MY TEAM PERIOD. It is the average of the top 5 players at your position.

    Not the attitude I want.
  9. cheesey
    Offline

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Ratings Received:
    +3 / 0 / -0
    I agree. After all, it's for ONE season! And if he did well this coming season, he'd be in an even BETTER position to holler for the big bucks.
    But turning down 7 mill???? To me, thats just plain out stupid!!!
    I mean really.......how much can you spend in one lifetime?
    If he put the money in the bank, he could live off the interest!
    I'm sorry.....i just can't feel sorry for a guy turning that down.
    I would be satisfied with my own home (and NOT a mansion!) and a decent car. (Like a Jeep Wrangler)
    Its just greed, period.
  10. 4thand26
    Offline

    4thand26 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,555
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Is it greed if he thinks that he can get paid more? I am not sure. I would fault him if he was harming someone else to get more for himself. But other than Drew Rosesleeze not getting his commission, I beleive that Briggs is only hurting himself by holding out. Yes 7.2M is a lot more than I will ever see in my lifetime, but if I think that I am worth more than I am getting offered, why shouldn't I try to get what I perceive as far market?
  11. cheesey
    Offline

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Ratings Received:
    +3 / 0 / -0
    My opinion is 7 mill for what he does IS fair compensation.
    I call it GREED.
  12. 4thand26
    Offline

    4thand26 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,555
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    I agree with your first sentence.
    But why shouldn't he try and make as much money as he can, while he can?
  13. Pack93z
    Offline

    Pack93z You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Location:
    Central Wisconsin
    Ratings Received:
    +22 / 0 / -0
    Because the CBA and the rules say the club has the right to protect one player every year, and he is that player this year. To compensate him for that year he gets paid the average of the top five player. Franchise tag is in the rules, to sit and "bitch" that you are being disrespected is my issue.

    Sign the contract which is in the rules, play your year out and go into free agency next year. Clements did that last year, he had the club agree that he would sign the deal and play the year out "with out issue" if they agreed not to tag him again. Fair to both.

    If he wasn't being compensated fairly I would agree, but 7 million is not being under paid.
  14. 4thand26
    Offline

    4thand26 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,555
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Good post. I 100% agree with the CBA rules. What i hate is that there are no teeth to make a player stick to the contracts. Therefore, since other people have held out and pulled this crap, it will continue. I really think that there should be very stiff rules against sitting out.

    I think that briggs can sit out the first 10 games, and then play the last 6, and still get credit for the year. THat sucks.

    Good post 93z

Share This Page