Redskins want Briggs

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
21,928
Reaction score
2,057
Location
Milwaukee
PHOENIX - The NFL Owners meeting are in full swing with announcements and committee meetings highlighting the week but it's the deals made on the side that give juice to the week.

One such deal offered Monday night, if it happens, could have major ramifications on two franchises and one franchise player.

Drew Rosenhaus, the agent for Bears' disgruntled Pro Bowl linebacker Lance Briggs, told FOXSports.com that the Redskins informed him Monday that they would like to swing a deal that would send Washington's first-round pick, No. 6 overall, to Chicago for the Bears' first-rounder, No. 31, and Briggs.

When asked about such an offer Redskins owner Dan Snyder confirmed to FOXSports.com that he in fact wanted to make the move and they were waiting to talk to Chicago. In fact, Snyder spent a couple of minutes talking to Briggs, who showed up with Rosenhaus at the meeting.

Snyder and football operations man Vinny Cerato left to find head coach Joe Gibbs regarding the deal. But before leaving Rosenhaus informed Cerato that he in fact spoke with the Bears and they were waiting an official call from the Redskins.

Briggs told FOXSports.com earlier this month that he would never play another down again for the Bears and he was willing to sit out the 2008 season.

Obviously many deals are discussed but fail to come to fruition and this deal could die as well. Both teams seemed to be on the same page but Gibbs also needed to sign off before an official offer was made. Plus, while Snyder said he'd work the deal Washington needs to formally reach out to Chicago and make an official offer. Washington could also in the end decide to change their minds as any trade would entail them getting Briggs signed to a long-term contract.
 

porky88

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
3,991
Reaction score
0
Location
Title Town
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.
 

net

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
980
Reaction score
22
Location
Rhinelander
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.
 

warhawk

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
1,922
Reaction score
17
Location
Gulf Shores, Al
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.
 

OregonPackFan

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
356
Reaction score
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?
 

Pack93z

You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
4,855
Reaction score
8
Location
Central Wisconsin
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
 

4thand26

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
1,555
Reaction score
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.
 

Pack93z

You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
4,855
Reaction score
8
Location
Central Wisconsin
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.
 

cheesey

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 25, 2005
Messages
1,000
Reaction score
3
Location
Wisconsin
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.
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.
 

4thand26

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
1,555
Reaction score
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?
 

4thand26

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
1,555
Reaction score
0
My opinion is 7 mill for what he does IS fair compensation.
I call it GREED.

I agree with your first sentence.
But why shouldn't he try and make as much money as he can, while he can?
 

Pack93z

You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
4,855
Reaction score
8
Location
Central Wisconsin
cheesey said:
My opinion is 7 mill for what he does IS fair compensation.
I call it GREED.

I agree with your first sentence.
But why shouldn't he try and make as much money as he can, while he can?

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 "*****" 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.
 

4thand26

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
1,555
Reaction score
0
4thand26 said:
cheesey said:
My opinion is 7 mill for what he does IS fair compensation.
I call it GREED.

I agree with your first sentence.
But why shouldn't he try and make as much money as he can, while he can?

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 "*****" 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.

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
 
Top