Chocolate Milk

The thought of Landry in our secondary makes my pants tight. I'm not afriad to say it.

Yes, he's still ranked pretty highly though. Though it's hardly authoritative, he's not even on Mel Kiper's top 25 anymore.

I'm with you here. I don't care that they mention it. Maybe it will stop them from talking about Steve Bartman.

Maybe this should be moved to polls? I don't know what's going on.

Seems like every Cubs fan I know has Rich Hill on their Fantasy team. I have him and I want to see how many other Cubs fans have him.

Branch's stock is falling like a rock.

Redskins fans look to be talking themselves into liking the trade.

:crossesfingers:

As of now, I don't think a LB at 6 is likely - Willis would be a reach, imo. The Bears can trade down - especially if Quinn or AD falls (I think one of them will) - and get the extra picks that most of us would like. Willis may be a reach at 6, but not much of one. It seems like in the top 10, people are usually trying to fill their biggest need. I wouldn't be too upset if the Bears took either Landry or Willis at 6. Trading down would probably be the best option though, assuming the deal is reasonable. I'm still not sure about the deal as it really doesn't make much sense for the Skins.

Listening to Bors and Bernstein and they seem to be taking the "Let Briggs sit out because he can't dictate what the organization is going to do." I'm not sure what the point of this would be, assuming he's going to hold out. Why let Briggs go for nothing in a year just to make some sort of stand? Seems pig headed.

Wha?

I would bet they wait, but eventually trade down. Yeah, this is what I think they would do as well.

He wouldn't be trading the 6th pick overall for Briggs. He'd be trading that for Briggs and the 31st. He'd be trading one potential all pro player for an all pro player and a guy who is a little less likely to be all pro. My only problem with such a trade from a Bears perspective is, with 31 and 37, we know they already need O line help, secondary help, and offensive playmaker help. Now, trade Briggs with the 31 for that 6th, and all of a sudden you add one more need, without adding anymore draft picks. The guys who are obvious replacements for Briggs aren't worth anywhere near being a 6 pick, so if you take them, then you are essentially removing much of the value of that 6th pick in the first place. Angelo would almost have to trade down, to try and get 2 later 1st round picks. If you are giving up Briggs and your 1st, I think you have to end up with at least 2 picks when all is said and done. Because all of a sudden you have multiple needs and serious depth issues. Exactly. Which was my point in not liking the deal last night. And I think the odds of filling those needs at #6, is unlikely unless you overdraft. I see OL and with Briggs gone OLB as the biggest needs. And I think Willis and Levi Brown would be slight overdrafts at 6. If Briggs stays these are still our biggest needs. That's if you believe Briggs will sit out, which I refuse to believe. If Briggs does play, worst case, you get a LB next year or have a year to see what the guys already in camp can do. Why do you refuse to beleive it? I think it's more likely than not at this point. What makes next year different than this year in your senario? Next year we'd be in the same situation. You're still having a rookie fill in for Briggs and you lose Briggs for nothing. I'm not seeing the advantage there. The Bears were probably going to draft a WLB this year regardless if Briggs stays or not. They pretty much have to considering his threats to hold out. Briggs is gone. The best case senario, he plays this year and then leaves. Worst case senario he sits out 10 games and never plays again for the Bears (I doubt the Bears will pop him into the lineup after sitting out the first 10 weeks.) The reality is probably somewhere in between.

He wouldn't be trading the 6th pick overall for Briggs. He'd be trading that for Briggs and the 31st. He'd be trading one potential all pro player for an all pro player and a guy who is a little less likely to be all pro. My only problem with such a trade from a Bears perspective is, with 31 and 37, we know they already need O line help, secondary help, and offensive playmaker help. Now, trade Briggs with the 31 for that 6th, and all of a sudden you add one more need, without adding anymore draft picks. The guys who are obvious replacements for Briggs aren't worth anywhere near being a 6 pick, so if you take them, then you are essentially removing much of the value of that 6th pick in the first place. Angelo would almost have to trade down, to try and get 2 later 1st round picks. If you are giving up Briggs and your 1st, I think you have to end up with at least 2 picks when all is said and done. Because all of a sudden you have multiple needs and serious depth issues. Exactly. Which was my point in not liking the deal last night. And I think the odds of filling those needs at #6, is unlikely unless you overdraft. I see OL and with Briggs gone OLB as the biggest needs. And I think Willis and Levi Brown would be slight overdrafts at 6. If Briggs stays these are still our biggest needs.

He should reopen negotiations based on the fact that he's a really good player who doesn't have a contract right now. We're not talking about caving in to some 2nd year player wanting to renegotiate his rookie contract. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. If you think that I want them to make some sort of stand on principle, that's not what I am talking about. They aren't negotiating because they feel that his cost outweighs his value. If this is the reason they stopped negotiating then I don't see why his threat to hold out would change their minds. It has to do with your assertion that they shouldn't cave to him just becasue he's talking about holding out. Franchising Briggs was the right move. Franchising without any willingness to talk longterm is just dumb. Angelo should talk because they have a valuable player whom they need and can keep with just money. And they have plenty of cap space (and that cap is just going up) to do it. Of course he'd threaten to hold out with a franchise tag. That has nothing to do with me wanting Angelo to go back to the table. I've wanted him to go back the whole time. Thinking Briggs will be cool with playing as a franchise player is an error in judgement. Yes, probably so. I do understand that they have cap space now, but there are a plethora of contracts for marquee players that are going to have to be addressed in the near future. Rex, Harris, Tillman, Vasher, Berrian to name a few. Are these players more important to the Bears success than Briggs? I would say "an improved" Rex Grossman (I think he'd have to improve some to get an extension) and Tommie Harris are. Would signing Briggs keep them from extending those players? I honestly don't know. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the Bears brass here as they have earned it with there personnel moves and cap management over the last few years. This situation is upon us now. The Bears aren't going to extend Briggs and Briggs might not play for the first 10 weeks of next season. That's the way it looks. The Bears either think that they can replace Briggs or that he's too expensive to fit in with their future plans. If that's the case, then this is a great deal. Obviously I'm giving a lot of credit to the Bears here. Maybe they have completely screwed this situation to holy hell. I don't think they have. Getting the number 6 pick also gives us the option to trade down and get more picks. If a player drops from the top 4, teams will want to move up to get them. Jerry likes trading down. The #6 gives us a hell of a lot of flexibility and I think it would be a huge get to acquire it. Just my opinion here but I think that a single player isn't as hard to replace as many people think it is. The Pats have been dumping marquee players for years and while they might have a lull here and there, they usually are better off for it. Did losing Deon Branch hurt them last year? Maybe a little. They were still damn close to making it to the Superbowl. And oh, by the way, they have 2 first round picks this year. How did that trade work out for Seattle? Was it worth it? I doubt many Seattle fans think it was in retrospect and I think if the Bears make this deal, Redskins fans will be feeling the same way.

Exactly. Linebacker is already a need. I think the Bears aren't going to extend Briggs so they would have to replace him next year. This Franchise tag was Briggs' first step out the door. Also considering the fact that there is a good chance he'll hold out for a large portion of the year, I don't think you could pass this up if offered.

He should reopen negotiations based on the fact that he's a really good player who doesn't have a contract right now. We're not talking about caving in to some 2nd year player wanting to renegotiate his rookie contract. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. If you think that I want them to make some sort of stand on principle, that's not what I am talking about. They aren't negotiating because they feel that his cost outweighs his value. If this is the reason they stopped negotiating then I don't see why his threat to hold out would change their minds.

Basically this whole thing boils down to what caliber of player you think Briggs is.

I've been trying to point out the overall value of going from #31 to #6, but yes I like the way you put it. This is like gaining the #16 overall. It is like gaining the #16 overall. But, it's only "like gaining the 16" and isn't exactly gaining the 16. The Jones deal was easier to swallow because there was an obvious replacement for him already on the team, one who I think is already better. If you can trade a guy who is no better than a platoon player then moving up in the draft without actually gaining additional picks is still attractive. When trading Briggs, you are opening up a huge hole with no real internal solution. Without adding quantity to your draft picks, you are therefore adding more needs while keeping your supply the same. The Bears have needs. Trading Briggs without adding addition picks is just going to make it harder to fill all those needs. What if Briggs sits out the first 10 weeks? Then what? He's really burned his bridges here. I have started to come around to the fact that this is a real possibility. If that's the case, you'll still have the big hole and have either a a lower caliber player filling it or without an extra impact player on one side of the ball. I think this is a no brainer for the Bears if offered. I'm still not convinced that the Redskins have a big need at LB, but they like the make a splash. Angelo should start talking longterm contract if he doesn't want Briggs to sit-out. Cutting off negotiations was a fun little jab at the guy, but it's really a stupid longterm strategy. He probably thinks Briggs demands are unreasonable and don't fit in with his long term plan. He should reopen the negotiation based on a player's threat to hold out?

I've been trying to point out the overall value of going from #31 to #6, but yes I like the way you put it. This is like gaining the #16 overall. It is like gaining the #16 overall. But, it's only "like gaining the 16" and isn't exactly gaining the 16. The Jones deal was easier to swallow because there was an obvious replacement for him already on the team, one who I think is already better. If you can trade a guy who is no better than a platoon player then moving up in the draft without actually gaining additional picks is still attractive. When trading Briggs, you are opening up a huge hole with no real internal solution. Without adding quantity to your draft picks, you are therefore adding more needs while keeping your supply the same. The Bears have needs. Trading Briggs without adding addition picks is just going to make it harder to fill all those needs. What if Briggs sits out the first 10 weeks? Then what? He's really burned his bridges here. I have started to come around to the fact that this is a real possibility. If that's the case, you'll still have the big hole and have either a a lower caliber player filling it or without an extra impact player on one side of the ball. I think this is a no brainer for the Bears if offered. I'm still not convinced that the Redskins have a big need at LB, but they like the make a splash.

I really like this because this gives us the chance to grab one of several impact players. We'd be in a position to grab any of the top 4 if they drop and we're in prime position to take one of Willis or Landry filling 2 positions of need. I doubt they'd get a much better offer than this. That's pure speculation on my part, but it's the way I feel. It is also a way to turn a potential big negative into a big positive. Edit: Also DT Omobi Okoye would probably be available at #6.

Not sure if it's been mentioned but the value of the move is equal to about the 16th overall pick.

I would take the rumored deal.

Wow, that avatar is awesome.

I think you are taking this way more seriously than the newspaper intended it to be taken. Just my two cents. They probably expected to get a bunch of cute letters from kids about their favorite teams. Your 100 form letters with different signatures probably wasn't what they were looking for.