The draft value chart concerning Briggs

[Skins3000]

Based on www.profootballtalk.com, the Bears would get a net gain of 1,000 points on this trade involving Briggs and draft picks. Do the Redskins front office realize a draft value chart exist? This mean, the Redskins should at least receive a second round pick and possibly a fourth round pick for this trade to go through. I hope the Skins do not get abused on this trade.

[Diggs43]

Redskins #6 - 1600

Bears #31 - 600

Difference - 1000

So Lance Briggs is worth 0 ? Come on now

Draft Value Chart :
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft06/news/story?id=2410670

[RIDETHEWALRUS]

That means the Redskins value a 26 yr old 2 time pro bowler as the #16 pick in the draft.

I don't see a problem with that logic.

[Art]

Hello, class valedictorian at Complete Dope University. We enjoyed your speech. Now, as you rush off to take your medicine and wipe the drool from your lips, I'll help others understand what you don't. Lance Briggs would exist in this trade. The concept might be that a 26-year-old, two-time Pro Bowler, one-time All Pro and one-time Pro Bowl alternate MIGHT, just MIGHT be worth 1000 draft value points, or, approximately the 16th pick of the draft.

This essentially means if you think the Skins will trade No. 6, get FULL value for it according to the draft value chart, WHILE ALSO getting Briggs, you should probably ring the bell, cause the fries are done baby. As it happens, the draft value chart is a touchy subject here because fans ignore it exists when they want to scream about favorable draft value chart trades we've made -- i.e. Jason Campbell.

But, yeah, if you'd like, I can probably get you the Skins draft value chart. Let me know.

[Diggs43]

That means the Redskins value a 26 yr old 2 time pro bowler as the #16 pick in the draft.

I don't see a problem with that logic.

Me either. PFT is valuing him as 0.

[MRMADD]

That means the Redskins value a 26 yr old 2 time pro bowler as the #16 pick in the draft.

I don't see a problem with that logic.

Well, here's the problem: if the Skins actually had the 16th pick, would they really be shopping for a linebacker with it? Doubtful. It's not one of our highest needs.

Besides, if you had the 16th pick, don't you think you could parlay it into more than just one linebacker? You'd also have to consider the karma of trading away the 16th pick: the 49ers once traded up to the 16th pick to take... Jerry Rice.

[AmishGangsta]

I think the value is just fine.

It's not the trade itself that most people - including myself - have a problem with. It's the fact that you give up so much for a guy like Mcintosh, turnaround the following year and spend a first round pick on a guy at the same position.

It's almost like the Skins' are going in circles.

[Hamilbone13]

duhhh...I no understand. Briggs, 26 year old, 2-time pro bowl linebacker. Is that not worth anything? Don't start dumb threads please!!

[TheU2689]

Hello, class valedictorian at Complete Dope University. We enjoyed your speech. Now, as you rush off to take your medicine and wipe the drool from your lips, I'll help others understand what you don't. Lance Briggs would exist in this trade. The concept might be that a 26-year-old, two-time Pro Bowler, one-time All Pro and one-time Pro Bowl alternate MIGHT, just MIGHT be worth 1000 draft value points, or, approximately the 16th pick of the draft.

This essentially means if you think the Skins will trade No. 6, get FULL value for it according to the draft value chart, WHILE ALSO getting Briggs, you should probably ring the bell, cause the fries are done baby. As it happens, the draft value chart is a touchy subject here because fans ignore it exists when they want to scream about favorable draft value chart trades we've made -- i.e. Jason Campbell.

But, yeah, if you'd like, I can probably get you the Skins draft value chart. Let me know.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[RIDETHEWALRUS]

Well, here's the problem: if the Skins actually had the 16th pick, would they really be shopping for a linebacker with it? Doubtful. It's not one of our highest needs.



No...they would probably look at getting someone on the D-Line...funny thing about that though is the "top tier" D-line will be gone by #16 while the equally talented less heralded D-line won't start getting drafted until #31.

Funny thing about this trade is that it is essentially a trade down for a successful #16 (not guaranteed any other way) and the #31 which will feature HEAPS of talent at both DE and DT.

[Art]

Well, here's the problem: if the Skins actually had the 16th pick, would they really be shopping for a linebacker with it? Doubtful. It's not one of our highest needs.

Besides, if you had the 16th pick, don't you think you could parlay it into more than just one linebacker? You'd also have to consider the karma of trading away the 16th pick: the 49ers once traded up to the 16th pick to take... Jerry Rice.

Probably not but that's because none are any good in this draft, comparatively, and, Briggs has outperformed what the No. 16 pick in the draft typically performs as. The plain fact is, from a pure VALUE perspective, based SOLELY on Briggs' resume without any coloring by personal views of how good WE think he actually is, the deal is a steal FOR the Redskins. You simply don't find guys with that resume at that age for that cheap a price very often.

And, again, I repeat, I don't want to do it cause I do not believe Briggs is that good :). What I'm basically saying is I wouldn't have killed her, but I'd understand.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

Going overboard at one position (LB) a year after going overboard at one position (WR) when there are clearly other needs (DT, DE, G, SS, CB); that is what concerns me.

[Peregrine]

Nobody claimed PFT was a reliable source of football information. EVER.

[turbodiesel#44]

I agree this is probably a good deal. Unless Vinny chokes and throws in next years second rounder too. But in the back of my head, I am wondering how it will affect the teams addressing of more pressing defensive needs, and the cap implications when we sit down with ST and Cooley.

[RIDETHEWALRUS]

None of those are particularly "clear needs"

DT...we get back a healthy Griff and Salavea with Golston (who like most young players with experience is likely to have improved)...BTW some very good DTs will be available at #31

DE...AC came on very strong last year and Daniels/Wynn likely have another year in them...BTW some very good DEs are gonna be available at #31

G...we resigned Wade who will likely take over the G spot. Dockery wasn't some immaculate pro-bowler, he was a slightly above average G who just happened to be massive while holding and false starting. Not a pressing need by any means.

SS...This may actually be a need because we do not know if PP will be healthy enough to start and perform like we know he can. Stoutmire...a savy veteran with experience in the system coming off a very good year was acquired for this concern though.

CB...This may also be a need, but only if Springs goes down with an injury again. Even then we will have a Rogers and Smoooooooot back there. Not all that pressing.


Meanwhile at LB...we have a second year player who earned a total of 1 start last year instead letting HIghway 57 take all the glory for him. We signed a stop gap MLB who is gonna be 32 this year at MLB. So I do not see how this is any less of a need than the aforementioned positions.

[turbodiesel#44]

None of those are particularly "clear needs"

DT...we get back a healthy Griff and Salavea with Golston (who like most young players with experience is likely to have improved)...BTW some very good DTs will be available at #31

DE...AC came on very strong last year and Daniels/Wynn likely have another year in them...BTW some very good DEs are gonna be available at #31

G...we resigned Wade who will likely take over the G spot. Dockery wasn't some immaculate pro-bowler, he was a slightly above average G who just happened to be massive while holding and false starting. Not a pressing need by any means.

SS...This may actually be a need because we do not know if PP will be healthy enough to start and perform like we know he can. Stoutmire...a savy veteran with experience in the system coming off a very good year was acquired for this concern though.

CB...This may also be a need, but only if Springs goes down with an injury again. Even then we will have a Rogers and Smoooooooot back there. Not all that pressing.


Meanwhile at LB...we have a second year player who earned a total of 1 start last year instead letting HIghway 57 take all the glory for him. We signed a stop gap MLB who is gonna be 32 this year at MLB. So I do not see how this is any less of a need than the aforementioned positions.

I would put our needs at DT and DE above our linebacker needs. I was hoping we parlayed #6 into bolstering both of those positions. But Briggs is good value for a #16. IMO, Vinny has done much worse. Much, much worse.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

None of those are particularly "clear needs"

DT...we get back a healthy Griff and Salavea with Golston (who like most young players with experience is likely to have improved)...BTW some very good DTs will be available at #31

DE...AC came on very strong last year and Daniels/Wynn likely have another year in them...BTW some very good DEs are gonna be available at #31

G...we resigned Wade who will likely take over the G spot. Dockery wasn't some immaculate pro-bowler, he was a slightly above average G who just happened to be massive while holding and false starting. Not a pressing need by any means.

SS...This may actually be a need because we do not know if PP will be healthy enough to start and perform like we know he can. Stoutmire...a savy veteran with experience in the system coming off a very good year was acquired for this concern though.

CB...This may also be a need, but only if Springs goes down with an injury again. Even then we will have a Rogers and Smoooooooot back there. Not all that pressing.


Meanwhile at LB...we have a second year player who earned a total of 1 start last year instead letting HIghway 57 take all the glory for him. We signed a stop gap MLB who is gonna be 32 this year at MLB. So I do not see how this is any less of a need than the aforementioned positions.

Did you watch any of our games last year? Are you aware of our defensive rankings against the run, sacks, takeaways, overall? We clearly need to upgrade at DT and DE.

Are you really that comfortable with Wade at guard? He's predominantly a tackle and is 6'8".

CB may not be a top need this season if we keep Springs, but 2 elite corners wouldn't be able to succeed with our anemic pass rush. Yes, if Springs goes down then we are working with a 2nd and 3rd corner at best, or two 3rd corners at worst.

[Art]

Did you watch any of our games last year? Are you aware of our defensive rankings against the run, sacks, takeaways, overall? We clearly need to upgrade at DT and DE.

Are you really that comfortable with Wade at guard? He's predominantly a tackle and is 6'8".

CB may not be a top need this season if we keep Springs, but 2 elite corners wouldn't be able to succeed with our anemic pass rush. Yes, if Springs goes down then we are working with a 2nd and 3rd corner at best, or two 3rd corners at worst.

Have you watched our team the last three years? Have you seen us drop from 25 sacks from people NOT on the defensive line two years ago to just 7 last year? Think a team that bases the entire defense on the premise that it will NOT have to commit an extra man to the box to stop the run might need actively, lively linebackers?

Think a rookie DT or DE who's likely not to see the field if everyone is healthy, and if he does, is almost certain to be a huge negative on the field for the defense and whole team AS a rookie is the way to improve the defense next year?

If you're talking about future improvement you'll get me to buy in on DL. If you're talking about improving last year's defense THIS year, then, you don't want a DL draft pick. You want someone you know is ready to play this year.

[RIDETHEWALRUS]

Did you watch any of our games last year? Are you aware of our defensive rankings against the run, sacks, takeaways, overall? We clearly need to upgrade at DT and DE.

Are you really that comfortable with Wade at guard? He's predominantly a tackle and is 6'8".

CB may not be a top need this season if we keep Springs, but 2 elite corners wouldn't be able to succeed with our anemic pass rush. Yes, if Springs goes down then we are working with a 2nd and 3rd corner at best, or two 3rd corners at worst.

I did watch and what I saw was our 2 starting DTs from a year ago both injured. Now I am not privy to the injury information our coaching staff is...but I am presuming they will be coming back healthy with Golston who is going to be even better this year.

I am not entirely sold with Wade at G, but I was never entirely sold on Dockery at G either BTW he is 6'6".

What you are missing here is that THERE ARE EXCELLENT DEs AVAILABLE AT #31. Tim Crowder, Charles Johnson, Quentin Moses and more!

[peanut0862]

So if we go by the value charts we turn the #6 pick into a pro bowl lb and another first round pick. Our defence was ranked 31st last year so no one we pick at #6 will help as much as Briggs and the player, be it a d lineman or db at #31.

[Califan007]

Imaginary scenario, anyone can answer:

If the Skins had both the #16 and the #31 picks in the 1st round, but did NOT have the #6...and Chicago said they'd trade Briggs to the Skins for the #16 pick...would you do it?

[Seabee1973]

None of those are particularly "clear needs"

DT...we get back a healthy Griff and Salavea with Golston (who like most young players with experience is likely to have improved)...BTW some very good DTs will be available at #31

DE...AC came on very strong last year and Daniels/Wynn likely have another year in them...BTW some very good DEs are gonna be available at #31

s.


except for golston and carter all are old also big joe has been battling injuries the last 2 seasons and griffen has also been injured and they will probably continue down that path

[REDSKINZ-RIDEORDIE]

What you are missing here is that THERE ARE EXCELLENT DEs AVAILABLE AT #31. Tim Crowder, Charles Johnson, Quentin Moses and more!


Exactly, I dont think a lot of fans on ES actually realize how deep this draft is at the DL position. Even if we were to trade down from the 31st pick and get at least a 2nd and 3rd round pick, there are STILL gonna be some great players at the DL available. Every great player was not selected as a top 10 draft pick. We add that player, along with our other acquisitions (Fletcher, Smoot, hopefully Briggs), along with the rest of our D from last year that are desperate to have a great year, our defense is gonna look drastically different. And even after the draft, during the offseason, players are still gonna be getting cut. We're definetly gonna pick up a player or two thats gonna help us out.


Im talking like the deal for Briggs is already done. Mannn, we HAVE to make this deal now. I dont want to go back to just having that #6 pick. Or trading down to pick up a couple unproven players. Not knocking that, but if we go the Briggs route, our defense can be that much more serious next year.









LETS GO HOYAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jivelikenice]

I think they want out of # 6 and thus far this is the best deal they think they can get. They mauy not have initially targeted an olb but this deal may give them the best value for that pick. A majority of us on this board pushed for a trade down. Well we are trading down and picking up a Pro Bowler in addition to the lower pick if this goes through...

[Skins3000]

Hello, class valedictorian at Complete Dope University. We enjoyed your speech. Now, as you rush off to take your medicine and wipe the drool from your lips, I'll help others understand what you don't. Lance Briggs would exist in this trade. The concept might be that a 26-year-old, two-time Pro Bowler, one-time All Pro and one-time Pro Bowl alternate MIGHT, just MIGHT be worth 1000 draft value points, or, approximately the 16th pick of the draft.

This essentially means if you think the Skins will trade No. 6, get FULL value for it according to the draft value chart, WHILE ALSO getting Briggs, you should probably ring the bell, cause the fries are done baby. As it happens, the draft value chart is a touchy subject here because fans ignore it exists when they want to scream about favorable draft value chart trades we've made -- i.e. Jason Campbell.

But, yeah, if you'd like, I can probably get you the Skins draft value chart. Let me know.

Lets remember the Hershal Walker trade here my friendly moderator who is a professional at all times. I guess you saw the value chart come into play on that deal also huh. Hershal =0 and the picks equal 3 super bowl rings. Lance Briggs is an all pro, two time pro bowler in a tampa two style ran defense. Last time I checked Gw does not run a tampa 2 defense and by the way Chicago defense was stout all the way around so who knows how really good is Lance Briggs or was it the system? Have the Skins not learned their lessons with Trotter which I am pretty sure as a moderator you have heard this argument. And if you think the Skins scouting department did anything to see if Briggs fit in the system then I really know you are a lost cause because the scouting department really scouted Brandon Lloyd and Adam Archuleta didn't they. This is solely based on Snyder's or in your case Mr. Snyder's espn fantasy league and Snyder needs points to make it in his league's playoff. As to Campbell, the qb position was a need and the Skins were old at this position with Brunell in the mix and Ramsey a bust. Thus Campbell is now contributing as a starter in his second year. Most analyst see the tools in Campbell becoming an up and coming star at a decent price might I add. The last time I checked the Skins have a young lb in Mcintosh which they gave up a 07 second round pick to get in the 06 draft. This is way too much cost at one position not to play Mcintosh. The Skins did not have a pass rush with the fewest sacks in league history so unless Briggs is being converted to a DE or a Bull rushing up the gut DT that demands a double team then Briggs will be useless. I think you Art need to subscribe to ESPN news and stop speaking sports out of your a?? I mean ignorance.

[Kosher Ham]

except for golston and carter all are old also big joe has been battling injuries the last 2 seasons and griffen has also been injured and they will probably continue down that path

Really ? Golston is 23 right now, and Carter is 28. Certainly senior citizens. :laugh:

Golston:
http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/411492

Carter:
http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/235200

Golston can play Griffin's position. And filled in nicely for Big Joe last year. Did Montgomery get released ?

[Skins3000]

Have you watched our team the last three years? Have you seen us drop from 25 sacks from people NOT on the defensive line two years ago to just 7 last year? Think a team that bases the entire defense on the premise that it will NOT have to commit an extra man to the box to stop the run might need actively, lively linebackers?

Think a rookie DT or DE who's likely not to see the field if everyone is healthy, and if he does, is almost certain to be a huge negative on the field for the defense and whole team AS a rookie is the way to improve the defense next year?

If you're talking about future improvement you'll get me to buy in on DL. If you're talking about improving last year's defense THIS year, then, you don't want a DL draft pick. You want someone you know is ready to play this year.

And this is another case of Art being off once again. I think Taylor played in his rookie season and contributed very well. How about Merriman, Kearse, Castillas,Spears,Seymour just to name a few de's and dt's and the list goes on as rookies contribute right away. When our team LEARN HOW TO SCOUT players instead of signing them based on name recognition then and only then will the Skins become a winning organization on a consistent basis.

[milliondollarslim]

just make sure that the FO doesn't give the bears anything in addition to the 6th pick and i could live with it.

[Buck812]

I think the draft value chart is worth about 3 cents or at least with anything involving early frist rounders.

[26fan4life]

And this is another case of Art being off once again. I think Taylor played in his rookie season and contributed very well. How about Merriman, Kearse, Castillas,Spears,Seymour just to name a few de's and dt's and the list goes on as rookies contribute right away. When our team LEARN HOW TO SCOUT players instead of signing them based on name recognition then and only then will the Skins become a winning organization on a consistent basis.


damn straight :applause:

amen to that

[chipwhich]

Hello, class valedictorian at Complete Dope University. We enjoyed your speech. Now, as you rush off to take your medicine and wipe the drool from your lips, I'll help others understand what you don't. Lance Briggs would exist in this trade. The concept might be that a 26-year-old, two-time Pro Bowler, one-time All Pro and one-time Pro Bowl alternate MIGHT, just MIGHT be worth 1000 draft value points, or, approximately the 16th pick of the draft.

This essentially means if you think the Skins will trade No. 6, get FULL value for it according to the draft value chart, WHILE ALSO getting Briggs, you should probably ring the bell, cause the fries are done baby. As it happens, the draft value chart is a touchy subject here because fans ignore it exists when they want to scream about favorable draft value chart trades we've made -- i.e. Jason Campbell.

But, yeah, if you'd like, I can probably get you the Skins draft value chart. Let me know.

:laugh: :laugh:

Art I have a new appreciation for you....

[#21Taylor4Ever]

Briggs is a proven stud LB.

The #6 pick could be a bust.

We also get the #31 pick.

What this proves is that we get a young, proven, Pro Bowl LB for a pick that could net a bust, and on the backend we get a later 1st.

While I dont think we need Briggs, it's definitely not a bad deal to make.

[RoidRage]

Serious question and excuse me in advance if I remember incorrectly, but when Rocky was drafted wasn't it said that he was a very smart guy and probably smart enough to play all 3 LB spots ??? Is it possible GW may have other toughts for Rocky down the road ???

[F Landry]

Hello, class valedictorian at Complete Dope University. We enjoyed your speech. Now, as you rush off to take your medicine and wipe the drool from your lips, I'll help others understand what you don't. Lance Briggs would exist in this trade. The concept might be that a 26-year-old, two-time Pro Bowler, one-time All Pro and one-time Pro Bowl alternate MIGHT, just MIGHT be worth 1000 draft value points, or, approximately the 16th pick of the draft.

This essentially means if you think the Skins will trade No. 6, get FULL value for it according to the draft value chart, WHILE ALSO getting Briggs, you should probably ring the bell, cause the fries are done baby. As it happens, the draft value chart is a touchy subject here because fans ignore it exists when they want to scream about favorable draft value chart trades we've made -- i.e. Jason Campbell.

But, yeah, if you'd like, I can probably get you the Skins draft value chart. Let me know.
Actually, I seriously doubt any team in the NFL would covet Briggs enough for him to garner the 16th pick.

Unlike the Redskins, other teams value draft picks, especially 1st rounders.

Teams don't just throw them around, sorry.

:doh:

[Tastes Like Chicken]

Have you watched our team the last three years? Have you seen us drop from 25 sacks from people NOT on the defensive line two years ago to just 7 last year? Think a team that bases the entire defense on the premise that it will NOT have to commit an extra man to the box to stop the run might need actively, lively linebackers?

Think a rookie DT or DE who's likely not to see the field if everyone is healthy, and if he does, is almost certain to be a huge negative on the field for the defense and whole team AS a rookie is the way to improve the defense next year?

If you're talking about future improvement you'll get me to buy in on DL. If you're talking about improving last year's defense THIS year, then, you don't want a DL draft pick. You want someone you know is ready to play this year.

Art, if you haven't already take a gander at my theory on takeaways (Turnovers- the OTHER key to a turnaround in 2007). There is more to the defensive woes than sacks, obviously. Our defensive line predicates what our LB's and DB's responsibilities are- how effective can they stop the run, and how effective are they in pressuring the QB, and causing turnover opportunities? They failed in all aspects last year. My analysis is NOT for a one-year solution, and I've stated this. (I've been a fan for a long time, not as long as you probably but definitely more than one year). In fact, I think it's 2 probably 3 in order to fix the line. I don't believe that Okoye, or Anderson/Adams will take us to the SB. I think that we need to add both a DT and a DE, a CB, a SS, and a MLB of the future down the line. (On the other side of the ball I think we need a G, blocking TE, C, and we'll see what Lloyd can produce this year).

I could get into a player by player analysis of the D-line, but the roster and ages are at redskins.com. Anyone is capable of looking at the ages of those guys, 31-33 who may have been effective in the past, but for one reason or another regressed (due to injury or age). Injuries may heal, but they are all now one year older than last (so are we lol)

I am not buying into the 'win now' mentality any more, because it has not worked. We have invested heavily in young DB's and LB's. It's time to stop neglecting the D-line, where we have not invested a first round pick in 10 years, and 2 first round picks in the last 16 years.

[redskinss]

if i were a gm in the nfl i would wipe my a"" with the draft value chart. according to this chart the last five picks in the first round are worth almost the same as the first pick overall. if the redskins had the last five picks in the first round and traded them for the #1 overall because a chart said there was equal value i would be pretty pissed.

[Art]

Lets remember the Hershal Walker trade here my friendly moderator who is a professional at all times. I guess you saw the value chart come into play on that deal also huh. Hershal =0 and the picks equal 3 super bowl rings. Lance Briggs is an all pro, two time pro bowler in a tampa two style ran defense. Last time I checked Gw does not run a tampa 2 defense and by the way Chicago defense was stout all the way around so who knows how really good is Lance Briggs or was it the system? Have the Skins not learned their lessons with Trotter which I am pretty sure as a moderator you have heard this argument. And if you think the Skins scouting department did anything to see if Briggs fit in the system then I really know you are a lost cause because the scouting department really scouted Brandon Lloyd and Adam Archuleta didn't they. This is solely based on Snyder's or in your case Mr. Snyder's espn fantasy league and Snyder needs points to make it in his league's playoff. As to Campbell, the qb position was a need and the Skins were old at this position with Brunell in the mix and Ramsey a bust. Thus Campbell is now contributing as a starter in his second year. Most analyst see the tools in Campbell becoming an up and coming star at a decent price might I add. The last time I checked the Skins have a young lb in Mcintosh which they gave up a 07 second round pick to get in the 06 draft. This is way too much cost at one position not to play Mcintosh. The Skins did not have a pass rush with the fewest sacks in league history so unless Briggs is being converted to a DE or a Bull rushing up the gut DT that demands a double team then Briggs will be useless. I think you Art need to subscribe to ESPN news and stop speaking sports out of your a?? I mean ignorance.

Quiz.

When did the draft value chart come into existence? Who brought it to the league. Hint, it was the same guy who traded Walker and he did it after that.

What was Walker traded for? Was he traded with another first-round pick for a Top 10 pick? If yes, you make an exquisitely good point. As no, you should probably attempt greater levels of silence in return to burning britches. Suffer with dignity man.

How insane it is for me to find you're a sack man. Sacks are the end of all things in your world, I get that, so, I repeat a question asked elsewhere. Two years ago when the team had 25 sacks from people who did NOT play the defensive line, was that good or bad? Last year when the team had 7 sacks from the same people, was that good or bad?

Two years ago the defensive line had 20 sacks. Last year it had 13. Not good, to be sure, but, the dramatic falloff in sacks comes not from up front so much as in the back. You do realize that's how Williams runs a defense, don't you? He wants his front stout against the run, typically requiring players who aren't going to get bunches of sacks, so then he can have blitzes come from all angles. If the back seven were capable of doing the job assigned them, the front would generate more sacks. That's not even a guess.

That's also why, seeing the critical failings back there, the team immediately went out to shore that area up with two weekend 1 free agency signings, because, it may have bypassed your notice, but, established NFL players typically help you more immediately than rookies.

Now, I believe it is quaint that you are in the, "Play Rocky not because I have any clue whether he can play or not, but simply because we drafted him a year ago and traded to get him, therefore I will hold my nose and demand he play regardless if a superior player is available." But, I'm pretty glad you aren't deciding who plays for the team, cause, I kind of hope we play guys we believe are better than other guys. I hope that's Rocky, myself.

But, if he's not good enough, I hope the team finds someone who is. Sorry you don't.

[Art]

Art, if you haven't already take a gander at my theory on takeaways (Turnovers- the OTHER key to a turnaround in 2007). There is more to the defensive woes than sacks, obviously. Our defensive line predicates what our LB's and DB's responsibilities are- how effective can they stop the run, and how effective are they in pressuring the QB, and causing turnover opportunities? They failed in all aspects last year. My analysis is NOT for a one-year solution, and I've stated this. (I've been a fan for a long time, not as long as you probably but definitely more than one year). In fact, I think it's 2 probably 3 in order to fix the line. I don't believe that Okoye, or Anderson/Adams will take us to the SB. I think that we need to add both a DT and a DE, a CB, a SS, and a MLB of the future down the line. (On the other side of the ball I think we need a G, blocking TE, C, and we'll see what Lloyd can produce this year).

I could get into a player by player analysis of the D-line, but the roster and ages are at redskins.com. Anyone is capable of looking at the ages of those guys, 31-33 who may have been effective in the past, but for one reason or another regressed (due to injury or age). Injuries may heal, but they are all now one year older than last (so are we lol)

I am not buying into the 'win now' mentality any more, because it has not worked. We have invested heavily in young DB's and LB's. It's time to stop neglecting the D-line, where we have not invested a first round pick in 10 years, and 2 first round picks in the last 16 years.

Chicken,

As I've said now numerous times, I favor drafting a Defensive Tackle over all other things, but not because I believe that improves us this year, rather, I believe it improves us, if we're lucky and he's good, next year and beyond. So, I have no problem using the draft for future needs. I think that's actually smart. I just don't sense people here get that THIS draft will not be good or bad for several years. It takes time to develop players and see who works. People here seem to think the mere act of drafting a defensive lineman does anything positive for us this year. The defensive line is fine for this year. It does start to need some rotation so get another young guy there, then you'll have three under 30 guys possibly starting in two years in Carter, Golston and this year's rook.

Though, the plain fact remains, the defensive line actually played better last year than other positions on defense and it was the other positions on defense that were our more serious issue, which is why we've added guys who we know can play in the league to those spots.

[Rskins06]

Did you watch any of our games last year? Are you aware of our defensive rankings against the run, sacks, takeaways, overall? We clearly need to upgrade at DT and DE.

Are you really that comfortable with Wade at guard? He's predominantly a tackle and is 6'8".

CB may not be a top need this season if we keep Springs, but 2 elite corners wouldn't be able to succeed with our anemic pass rush. Yes, if Springs goes down then we are working with a 2nd and 3rd corner at best, or two 3rd corners at worst.

Did I watch any games on TV? The answer was yes, what I saw was WH getting run over and not able to tackle anyone. Our LB's were ineffective getting to the qb, no one had to worry about our LB's, Lemar was to small at middle, Holdman sucked, all they had to worry about was Washington and he was injured. Tell me why it would be so bad to have a 2 time pro bowler playing the weak side.
We then have 3 LBers who can make plays, stop the run, defend the pass, and yes, maybe even get to the qb once in awhile. It is a win win situation with our defense, we have 3 proven LBers, a good secondary, this in itself will improve the D-Line.

[jsharrin55]

Based on www.profootballtalk.com (http://www.profootballtalk.com/), the Bears would get a net gain of 1,000 points on this trade involving Briggs and draft picks. Do the Redskins front office realize a draft value chart exist? This mean, the Redskins should at least receive a second round pick and possibly a fourth round pick for this trade to go through. I hope the Skins do not get abused on this trade.

While you all bash him for forgetting Briggs in the deal, the skins still don't need this trade. If the skins had the 16th pick in the draft this year would you want a LB?? Especially one that looks to require 20 million guaranteed?? The trade on the table is dumber then this post.

[redskinss]

the other thing the draft value chart doesnt take into consideration is that some years there is a consesus pick that everybody agrees will be a superstar that you can build your team around and other years there isnt. surely that changes the value of the pick considerably.

as i sit here i keep thinking of more reasons to dismiss that ridiculous chart.
if you trade a high pick for what turns out to be an insane amount of low first and second round picks you certainly increase your odds in the crapshoot we call the nfl draft. it also doesnt take into consideration the disgruntled player factor like the briggs trade would. my point is if briigs were happy in chicago and had the contract he wanted do you think the bears would consider this deal for even a second. you can only hope with the sixth overall pick to get a player like briggs who is a superstar in your system. why gamble on the draft when you have already won.

[pjfootballer]

I'm getting sick of everyone saying Briggs will not fit our defense. So Archuletta didn't fit our defense. Big Deal! Did Springs, Carter, Marcus Washington or Daniels not fit this defense when we plucked them from FA? Players can adapt and change. I keep hearing that Briggs is only good in a cover 2. I say BS. The only reason he is good in the cover 2, is because that's all he's played in his NFL career. I doubt he played it in college, I doubt he played it in High School and I doubt he played it in Pee Wee. Plus, GW plays a form of the cover 2 anyway.

If he's as fast at persuing the ball, then that means he'll be just as fast at blitzing when called upon. Art stated it correctly when he said GW wants to blitz from all angles, therefore, Briggs will not be the next LT and get 20 sacks. We were really one dimentional last year as Washington was are only effective blitzer and he was hobbled.

I do hate the fact that Rocky might take a back seat, but if you can get a better player in here, then you do it. I really on the fence about this trade, so at this point I say either way, I can't complain.

[Thoth]

Couple questions would love to hear comments about:

1. If you could trade down, but because lots of people want to move down due to deep late 1st and 2nd round, you would lose a little value based on the trade chart, do you?

2. Are any of the DT/DEs available worth a #6 pick, that is considered to be beastly superstars to be the way Taylor was?

3. Is picking up another huge contract wise, given our cap situation?

4. Wouldn't it be ideal to trade down, once or even twice, and draft 2 or 3 DLs, in a draft deep with them, or 2 DLs and a CB, all which can be signed for reasonable amounts?

I don't know enough to say, but would welcome comments.

How good is that Michigan DT? He is generally considered the best DL in the draft. Is it better to solidify the middle with one great player, or get another good but not great DT, and another good but not great DE?

Both the DEs seem small and lack prototypical size, meaning maybe draft them late 1st round or 2nd, but not with #6 pick.

It is a weak draft for corners, so how do we address this, wait till next year, or gamble on a late round pick.

Drafts like this really make you cringe about some FO decisions. That second round trade last year seems really foolish, when it might net a starting DE or DT. Think if we had it, and then traded down once or twice with #6, we could restock our whole DL in one shot!!!!

Thanks for any insight you have.

[cphil006]

yea, let's not do this trade. Trade down to middle of round, get a second rounder, draft LaRon Landry then get a DE or LG, which ever best prospect is available in the second.

[Stormy]

But, yeah, if you'd like, I can probably get you the Skins draft value chart. Let me know.

Frankly, we're a franchise which supplements our transactions with additional picks without much regard for draft charts and tables. Do you think moving up so aggressively to select Rocky McIntosh was worth this year's #37, last year's 2nd round pick, and one of last year's 6th rounders? I doubt you do, and I doubt even less that you'd subsequently consider it prudent to trade the equivalent of a #16 pick for a veteran who plays the same position. We all too liberally disregard picks in our quest to land players we covet (whether it's ill-advised moves like Duckett, trading for Brunell when he's about to be released, throwing-in another #2 when we're trading away the NFC's elite CB, packaging a ton of value to move up and grab Rocky who clearly wasn't a must have type of LB etc...). Converesely, when we want to dump a player, we're all-too-willing to accept an insignificant late round pick, or nothing at all, just to be free of them (even if they held inestimably higher value just a season before).

So, it's reasonable to question the Redskins acumen in dealing with draft charts. We're not offering the equivalent of a #16 pick for Briggs in a vacuum wherein all LBs are created equal and we're getting an All-Pro LB we need for a 1st round pick. Briggs (and the Bears) have an enormous amount of their own baggage they bring into this equation, which should count a great deal towards both our perceived leverage, and Briggs status-adjusted value.

[Stormy]

I just don't sense people here get that THIS draft will not be good or bad for several years. It takes time to develop players and see who works. People here seem to think the mere act of drafting a defensive lineman does anything positive for us this year.

I couldn't disagree more. It seems to me that the "critics" here are the ones who understand that the time for quick-fixes are past, and that the time to build for the future through the draft (especially along the lines) is here. It appears that it's the Redskins F.O. who, if these rumors of their aggressive pursuit of Briggs are accurate, can't delay their desire for instant gratification and need to add instant impact players, even if those acquisitions don't fit our personnel or a long-term vision.

[VAsBeachBoy]

This would probably be the worst thing we could do if we make it happen before the draft. There is no way that Lance Briggs is worth a second rounder this year a second rounder next year and a third rounder this year (approx. 1000 points). Thats what the value between our pick and their pick is and to be honest I would rather have 2 second rounders a third rounder and a 1st rounder #31 way more than ANOTHER LB. Hell here is where the whole thing should become so obviously retarded to the staff. I f we wait untill draft day the value of that pick is not going to go down much if at all. In this draft the only way it can go is up. Hell we may end up moving down two to three spots in the draft and get a second just for that. Why the hell would we act before the draft. NOBODY else does this practically ever. It is stupid especially when you are in the top ten.

[wildbill1952]

1. If you could trade down, but because lots of people want to move down due to deep late 1st and 2nd round, you would lose a little value based on the trade chart, do you?

2. Are any of the DT/DEs available worth a #6 pick, that is considered to be beastly superstars to be the way Taylor was?

3. Is picking up another huge contract wise, given our cap situation?

4. Wouldn't it be ideal to trade down, once or even twice, and draft 2 or 3 DLs, in a draft deep with them, or 2 DLs and a CB, all which can be signed for reasonable amounts?

1. The question pre-supposes (is that a word?) that the trade chart is something other than a subjective evaluation of the relative worth of the draft position. If you assume the chart is accurate, I would say only if it's real close. If you think it's one person's subjective evaluation, then I would say yes, you do. Since I believe the real worth of any given draft position is based solely on who is left of the eligible draftees, I tend to think of the draft chart as a guide, not as something cast in stone. (For instance, if I had two Calvin Johnson's or two Jerry Rice's available at any point in the draft, what would be the difference in the relative value of two consecutive draft picks? OTOH, if there are only two WR's left in the draft and that's what I need, and one is Jerry Rice and the other is a guy who runs a 5.2 40, then the draft positions have a tremendous difference in relative value between them, far above what the chart shows.)

2. Harder question. Requires evaluation of talent plus need of team plus (as Art has pointed out) the impact a player will make if he actually were to play in his first year. All draft players are capable of being busts or being injured their first year. Based solely on my estimation of the DL talent I would say only Branch and Andersen are worth it. But we can line up a few hundred people to say I'm out of my mind.

3. I have seen the FO perform cap magic. I do not pay much attention to it because I have seen the impossible happen. I do not know how, but the Skins seem to pull it out of their chubbies, year after year. I expect they will be able to do it again. Wise? Maybe/maybe not. But what good is it to have cap money left at the end of the season when next year's contracts can be re-negotiated or simply undone? I would hope they spend every last dime they can to bring a winner to DC. Unless, of course, they plan on giving any remaining cap to me.

4. I think it would be ideal to trade down and get more picks. But those who oppose this idea oppose it because they feel there is a significant talent drop off between the current highest rated DL's and those slated to go in the 2nd round. If this is true, then it would be a bad idea. If, as I feel, that two years down the road, one of these second rounders will be the subject of a hindsight thread "Why didn't we pick so-and-so in 2007"? then trading down for more picks is the way to go, assuming we get one or two of those future greats. If we pick wrong, then I am wrong.

Is Branch that good? I think the Skins need to stop the run in order to win. I think Branch would be a significant part of our run defense. Defensive line, although they are not dumb, do not have to learn as much about a defense as most of the other players defensive players do. They are not trying to cover people. They have to either protect one or two gaps, play contain, or rush the passer. It does not get overly complicated for a defensive tackle. Consequently, I disagree with Art on this issue, and I feel it more likely that a DL could contribute more quickly than, say, any newly drafted DB and could contribute significantly next season.

Is Branch that good? At least they don't have to teach him how to be big. Branch has that down.

[HoyaSkins28]

Based on www.profootballtalk.com (http://www.profootballtalk.com/), the Bears would get a net gain of 1,000 points on this trade involving Briggs and draft picks. Do the Redskins front office realize a draft value chart exist? This mean, the Redskins should at least receive a second round pick and possibly a fourth round pick for this trade to go through. I hope the Skins do not get abused on this trade.

Does the FO in your head not understand that the player is worth something too. You're only counting the draft picks, how about the central guy in this trade, umm, let me see, oh yeah, Lance Briggs.

[26fan4life]

Does the FO in your head not understand that the player is worth something too. You're only counting the draft picks, how about the central guy in this trade, umm, let me see, oh yeah, Lance Briggs.

Lance Briggs may be worth a first round pick talent-wise but we wouldn't select him with such a pick because WE DON'T NEED HIM!

[whatmeworry]

What this team needs more than anything else are role players, character guys. We need Ryan Clark back. We need ST and CC inked to lifetime contracts. Then we can start playing fantasy football.

[Art]

What this team needs more than anything else are role players, character guys. We need Ryan Clark back. We need ST and CC inked to lifetime contracts. Then we can start playing fantasy football.

Nah. We don't need that man. Haven't you heard? Our roleplayers suck, which is why everyone is so eager to replace Daniels or Wynn or Salave'a so quickly. Every other position on our team has guys you can point to as stars or someone we hope will be. Not the defensive line, a spot asked more than any other on our team to sacrifice individual stats for the team. They are the key role players we have.

And we want them dead.

[Stormy]

Every other position on our team has guys you can point to as stars or someone we hope will be. Not the defensive line, a spot asked more than any other on our team to sacrifice individual stats for the team. They are the key role players we have.

And we want them dead.

That seems a little over the top. I appreciate our role players along the DL, and what they bring to the team in terms of experience, leadership, intangibles and production within their respective roles. Wanting to improve the quality and production along the vulnerable defensive line, is not akin to putting a hit out on one of our DL role players. The problem is, that many of these "key role players" are effectively being used as "key starters" and getting far too many snaps, with far too little to show for it.

I'm not nearly as interested in the stats they have, nor those they sacrifice, as I am in the overall play of the unit: And every statistical barometer from those tracking our effectiveness against the run to those against the pass to those measuring our ability to put pressure on opposing QBs, indicates that these "role players" aren't producing (nor are the majority of their "starting" comrades in the trenches).

Likewise, what I empirically observe with my eyes every game, tells me that these guys are losing the battle at the point of attack, whether by being unable to hold their lanes, by being unable to either shed, nor occupy the requisite number of blockers needed to free up our LBs, by being stood up on downs where they need penetration, or by literally being blown off the ball when it's time to stiffen their backs against the run late in games.

This unit, whether observing the starters, or their role playing tandems, is increasingly injury prone, and increasingly past their prime in terms of age and production. Keep them on as role players, as rotational depth, as clubhouse leadership etc... but invest in some quality, 1st day draft picks along the line, so that we can fortify both our interior DL and our LDE spots against both the run and pass (against which they are currently equally ineffectual).

[Skins3000]

Quiz.

When did the draft value chart come into existence? Who brought it to the league. Hint, it was the same guy who traded Walker and he did it after that.

What was Walker traded for? Was he traded with another first-round pick for a Top 10 pick? If yes, you make an exquisitely good point. As no, you should probably attempt greater levels of silence in return to burning britches. Suffer with dignity man.

How insane it is for me to find you're a sack man. Sacks are the end of all things in your world, I get that, so, I repeat a question asked elsewhere. Two years ago when the team had 25 sacks from people who did NOT play the defensive line, was that good or bad? Last year when the team had 7 sacks from the same people, was that good or bad?

Two years ago the defensive line had 20 sacks. Last year it had 13. Not good, to be sure, but, the dramatic falloff in sacks comes not from up front so much as in the back. You do realize that's how Williams runs a defense, don't you? He wants his front stout against the run, typically requiring players who aren't going to get bunches of sacks, so then he can have blitzes come from all angles. If the back seven were capable of doing the job assigned them, the front would generate more sacks. That's not even a guess.

That's also why, seeing the critical failings back there, the team immediately went out to shore that area up with two weekend 1 free agency signings, because, it may have bypassed your notice, but, established NFL players typically help you more immediately than rookies.

Now, I believe it is quaint that you are in the, "Play Rocky not because I have any clue whether he can play or not, but simply because we drafted him a year ago and traded to get him, therefore I will hold my nose and demand he play regardless if a superior player is available." But, I'm pretty glad you aren't deciding who plays for the team, cause, I kind of hope we play guys we believe are better than other guys. I hope that's Rocky, myself.

But, if he's not good enough, I hope the team finds someone who is. Sorry you don't.

I thought stump the Schaub was on ESPN evidently he has become a part of the Redskin moderator board. I also thought you would been capable of figure the scenario out once I stated they won 3 super bowl rings, I guess I gave you too much credit. Your fatal attempt to use elaborate, sophisticated, adverbs and adjectives does not distract the fact that you do not have a clue to football even though the whole Herschel Walker point went tremendously over your head. You mention sacks or more or less pressure on the quarterback. The players when GW first came to Washington were in their prime more or less. GW use exotic styles of blitzing but over time teams began to scheme appropriately. Eventually a team has to get younger, stronger, and faster than before. If you watched the games instead of playing scramble or thumbing through a thesarus, games are won in the trenches. Most of our players in the trenches were being blown off the ball. A team can acquire all the linebackers they want but if they are not blocking up front then it is useless. Ask Ray Lewis about the addition of Ngata and what Ngata did to help Ray become an elite player again. Did I say Ngata, which by the way was a rookie last year who started and made a difference on a number one defense. Players play well in systems. The point of unpredictability in Rocky, how do you know what value Briggs bring especially coming from a totally different style of defense that Briggs play. History is on my side my benovelent friend. I thought I made that clear in pointing out Trotter who sucked in Washington but excelled in Philadelphia or how about asking the Steelers how they feel about Lb's in their old system. Most of the Steelers linebackers who left the system never were the productive players that they were in Pittsburgh. This is becoming redundant but the point being the Skins need a gm and a new scouting department and maybe just maybe you can learn something about football not soccer but american football.

[Stormy]

I thought beat the Schaub was on ESPN evidently he has become a part of the Redskin moderator board. Your fatal attempt to use elaborate, sophisticated, adverbs and adjectives does not distract the fact that you do not have a clue to football. Even though the whole Herschel Walker point went tremendously over your head. You mention sacks or more or less pressure on the quarterback.

Hey, Skins3000. I enjoyed your initial post (despite people getting too caught up thinking you were omitting Briggs from the -1000 differential, when I think you were just implying "is he worth that 1000?"), and I agreed with many (not all) of your subsequent points. However, you should pull in the reigns a little on the personal side, as I can promise you that Art knows football to the nth degree. He has a fantastic football mind, and just because he has the ability to articulate that knowledge with some eloquence, don't think for a second that he's some cloistered away ivory tower writer who doesn't have a feel for the game. He's nothing less than an "in the trenches" style, astute observer of the game in pretty much every facet from player technique to front office intrigue.

I disagree with him on the particular point of rationalizing the premise behind acquiring a guy like Briggs, but I sure don't think any less of his football acumen for it. Just a tip... :2cents:

[dfos81]

Based on www.profootballtalk.com, the Bears would get a net gain of 1,000 points on this trade involving Briggs and draft picks. Do the Redskins front office realize a draft value chart exist? This mean, the Redskins should at least receive a second round pick and possibly a fourth round pick for this trade to go through. I hope the Skins do not get abused on this trade.


I think they do realize that or the deal would already be done, what do you think?

We are seeing some good smoke screens, b/c even the fans are beliving a trade that hasn't even occured yet. I think if we do this we will end up w/ a 2nd rounder(wishful thinking..more like a 3rd) and later round pick like a 5th. I just feel that Gibbs is trying to get some more picks, and that could lead to us not having a 1st round pick. Could you guys imagine us making the PLAYOFFS w/o getting a TOP prospect out of the 1st round. I can.
I hope you don't think you know something that the FO doesn't when it comes to trade value. :doh:

[Diggs43]

Redskins #6 - 1600

Bears #31 - 600

Difference - 1000

So Lance Briggs is worth 0 ? Come on now

Draft Value Chart :
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft06/news/story?id=2410670



Hello, class valedictorian at Complete Dope University. We enjoyed your speech. Now, as you rush off to take your medicine and wipe the drool from your lips, I'll help others understand what you don't. Lance Briggs would exist in this trade. The concept might be that a 26-year-old, two-time Pro Bowler, one-time All Pro and one-time Pro Bowl alternate MIGHT, just MIGHT be worth 1000 draft value points, or, approximately the 16th pick of the draft.

This essentially means if you think the Skins will trade No. 6, get FULL value for it according to the draft value chart, WHILE ALSO getting Briggs, you should probably ring the bell, cause the fries are done baby. As it happens, the draft value chart is a touchy subject here because fans ignore it exists when they want to scream about favorable draft value chart trades we've made -- i.e. Jason Campbell.

But, yeah, if you'd like, I can probably get you the Skins draft value chart. Let me know.

If you're refering to my post, I know Lance Briggs would exist in this trade. I was letting the original poster know that PFT wasn't taking Briggs' value into consideration.

[Art]

I thought beat the Schaub was on ESPN evidently he has become a part of the Redskin moderator board. Your fatal attempt to use elaborate, sophisticated, adverbs and adjectives does not distract the fact that you do not have a clue to football. Even though the whole Herschel Walker point went tremendously over your head. You mention sacks or more or less pressure on the quarterback. The players when GW first came to Washington were in their prime more or less. GW use exotic styles of blitzing but over time teams began to scheme appropriately. Eventually a team has to get younger, stronger, and faster than before.

Hey, neat point.

I wonder of Carter, Golston and Montgomery are signs of younger, stronger, faster than before, huh? Bumping Wynn down for Carter, lengthening the interior bench, getting experience for some young bucks might well qualify for exactly what you're saying, so, congrats on knowing that's what we had to do, and scorn for not knowing we've already begun, son. As for sophistication, I fear if you find this overly high brow, I might well enjoy drinking at your place, but, probably would only pay you cash under the table to clean my house.


If you watched the games instead of playing scramble or thumbing through a thesarus, games are won in the trenches. Most of our players in the trenches were being blown off the ball. A team can acquire all the linebackers they want but if they are not blocking up front then it is useless. Ask Ray Lewis about the addition of Ngata and what Ngata did to help Ray become an elite player again. Did I say Ngata, which by the way was a rookie last year who started and made a difference on a number one defense. Players play well in systems. The point of unpredictability in Rocky, how do you know what value Briggs bring especially coming from a totally different style of defense that Briggs play. History is on my side my benovelent friend. I thought I made that clear in pointing out Trotter who sucked in Washington but excelled in Philadelphia or how about asking the Steelers how they feel about Lb's in their old system. Most of the Steelers linebackers who left the system never were the productive players that they were in Pittsburgh. This is becoming redundant but the point being the Skins need a gm and a new scouting department and maybe just maybe you can learn something about football ie not soccer but american football.

There's so much wrong here it's hard to know where to start. Our defensive line did have problems last year as every guy but Carter was essentially missing time or playing through injury that SHOULD have caused them to miss time. It was a strange year. This put Golston and Montgomery in and where Golston had some promise, he got pushed because he was a little light for the spot he was filling. In any case, history might be on your side better if you fairly captured how Trotter did here. He did not suck. He was not great. He was merely pretty good, which was a let down for he'd been great. And we used him poorly to the discredit of the coaching staff that wanted him, then failed to use him. Many players who have left their systems and come here have gotten better, history boy.

Ever hear of Moss? How about Portis? Washington? Griffin? Hell, Springs? Randy Thomas? These are all guys who played somewhere else to a pretty good level at times and have played GREAT here. You know they exist too, right? Or were they too people who are the sign of a bad front office incapable of identifying talent?

[Art]

I couldn't disagree more. It seems to me that the "critics" here are the ones who understand that the time for quick-fixes are past, and that the time to build for the future through the draft (especially along the lines) is here. It appears that it's the Redskins F.O. who, if these rumors of their aggressive pursuit of Briggs are accurate, can't delay their desire for instant gratification and need to add instant impact players, even if those acquisitions don't fit our personnel or a long-term vision.

In the end, I do have a hard time understanding any fan of any team that would prefer to get someone no one knows anything about, who has never played in the league, who has a very low percentage chance to even make it in the league, i.e. typical draft picks, versus guys who've proven some degree of performance and production in the NFL. The Redskins future is fine in that the team can cycle pretty aggressively every few years for how they structure deals. I'm not sure where you think a deal for Briggs which has not taken place and which Gibbs said was not close and which Gibbs said it's one thing to talk about something and another to sit down and see how it really works -- meaning there's lots of time before it happens -- is a sign of a need for instant gratification. I tend to think it's a sign they are talking about possibilities to see what works best for them.

As for your other post, I'm just having a little fun with people who hate our "star" mentality, damn Snyder, yet, want the biggest star in the draft who's name they know. I am having fun the last few days.

[SkinsFanAnt]

Going overboard at one position (LB) a year after going overboard at one position (WR) when there are clearly other needs (DT, DE, G, SS, CB); that is what concerns me.

:applause: Best post yet.

This is the NFL. In the NFL you don't win by making the best deals in the offseason...you win by putting together a great team and franchise through years of smart decisions.

Trading for Briggs is NOT a smart decision and Tastes Like Chicken just showed you why. Whats the point?...are we going to win the SB with 20 franchise LBs and NO DL? :doh:

[RIDETHEWALRUS]

Art, you are apparently the only other person on this board who likes to think before he types.

The fact that you are not an advocate of the Briggs trade (because you do not feel he is as good as he has performed) yet still see the logic in it is impressive and admirable.

What this potential trade boils down to is a trade for a proven player at an encertain position and a draft pick where we are likely able to address one of our key needs on the DL. There are a number of quality guys available at DE at #31 and likely to be a few more at DT. This dissapears in the trade talk because Gaines adams, Jamal Anderson, Adam Carriker, Alan Branch, and Amobi Akoye are the best Defensive Line prospects to ever enter an NFL draft (cough).

Fact is, like you have said, that a D-line draftee is not even likely to start for this team. In fact our highest selected D players (Rocky, Carlos, and ST) generally have not seen the field until late into the season regarless of a lack of production from the guys in front of them (Holdman, Harris, and Ifalete? [don't remember for sure]).

On the other hand we could secure our LB core long term by adding a 26 year old 2 time pro bowler while training Rocky (who played MLB in college) at MLB to go along with Washington. Then we could secure our D-Line long term by drafting a solid late 1st DE or DT to go along with our recently acquired Andre Carter and recently drafted Kedric Golston. Amazingly our Secondary has gotten younger too by the addition of Smoot (if he returns to his old redskin form). This move is part of a general plan to add youth AND talent to out D. But most people don't see that because, of course, Carriker...no wait, Branch...no wait, Adams, no wait, et al is the best prospect ever.

Art I respect your input because you seem to be one of the few who is capable of using logic to reason through decisions instead of relying entirely on emotion.:cheers:

[JoeGibbsThickandthin]

None of those are particularly "clear needs"

DT...we get back a healthy Griff and Salavea with Golston (who like most young players with experience is likely to have improved)...BTW some very good DTs will be available at #31

DE...AC came on very strong last year and Daniels/Wynn likely have another year in them...BTW some very good DEs are gonna be available at #31

G...we resigned Wade who will likely take over the G spot. Dockery wasn't some immaculate pro-bowler, he was a slightly above average G who just happened to be massive while holding and false starting. Not a pressing need by any means.

SS...This may actually be a need because we do not know if PP will be healthy enough to start and perform like we know he can. Stoutmire...a savy veteran with experience in the system coming off a very good year was acquired for this concern though.

CB...This may also be a need, but only if Springs goes down with an injury again. Even then we will have a Rogers and Smoooooooot back there. Not all that pressing.


Meanwhile at LB...we have a second year player who earned a total of 1 start last year instead letting HIghway 57 take all the glory for him. We signed a stop gap MLB who is gonna be 32 this year at MLB. So I do not see how this is any less of a need than the aforementioned positions.

32 is not old. He could play at a high level for the next 3 seasons.

Linebacker is not a problem. Rocky and Lamar fill in fine at 1 spot.

[RIDETHEWALRUS]

32 is not old true...but it sure aint young. While I am not personally concerned about Fletchers health considering he has been healthy for his whole career, having a young backup ready to step in is never a bad idea. Having a 2 time probowler at WLB is a fantastic idea.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

32 is not old true...but it sure aint young. While I am not personally concerned about Fletchers health considering he has been healthy for his whole career, having a young backup ready to step in is never a bad idea. Having a 2 time probowler at WLB is a fantastic idea.

Yet you don't see anything wrong with our D-line. Amazing. :laugh:

[Skins3000]

Hey, neat point.

I wonder of Carter, Golston and Montgomery are signs of younger, stronger, faster than before, huh? Bumping Wynn down for Carter, lengthening the interior bench, getting experience for some young bucks might well qualify for exactly what you're saying, so, congrats on knowing that's what we had to do, and scorn for not knowing we've already begun, son. As for sophistication, I fear if you find this overly high brow, I might well enjoy drinking at your place, but, probably would only pay you cash under the table to clean my house.



There's so much wrong here it's hard to know where to start. Our defensive line did have problems last year as every guy but Carter was essentially missing time or playing through injury that SHOULD have caused them to miss time. It was a strange year. This put Golston and Montgomery in and where Golston had some promise, he got pushed because he was a little light for the spot he was filling. In any case, history might be on your side better if you fairly captured how Trotter did here. He did not suck. He was not great. He was merely pretty good, which was a let down for he'd been great. And we used him poorly to the discredit of the coaching staff that wanted him, then failed to use him. Many players who have left their systems and come here have gotten better, history boy.

Ever hear of Moss? How about Portis? Washington? Griffin? Hell, Springs? Randy Thomas? These are all guys who played somewhere else to a pretty good level at times and have played GREAT here. You know they exist too, right? Or were they too people who are the sign of a bad front office incapable of identifying talent?

Art work with me here my friend. I am talking defense but since you want to talk about history for every one good player you named on that list you can name about five disappointments to go along with just one good player. The Deion Sanders, the Bruce Smiths, the Mark Carriers, the Jeff Georges, the Danny Wuerfels, and this list would take me 20 topics. Realize Trotter was out place on alot of plays because he could not work within the scheme that coaching staff had at the time. When Trotter in Philadelphia about a year ago maybe two became a free agent felt offers from KC. Trotter elected to stay put even though KC was offering more money due to Trotter FITTING THE PHILADELPHIA SYSTEM. Golston and Montgomery are young but lets not forget where they were drafted. Late fifth and sixth draft picks usually do not show any signs of high productivity unless the SCOUTING DEPARTMENT has done their homework. At best these DT's are good role players. As to cleaning your home for cash under the table, you could not afford me but how about you cutting my grass for minimum wage and lunch.

[Skins3000]

That seems a little over the top. I appreciate our role players along the DL, and what they bring to the team in terms of experience, leadership, intangibles and production within their respective roles. Wanting to improve the quality and production along the vulnerable defensive line, is not akin to putting a hit out on one of our DL role players. The problem is, that many of these "key role players" are effectively being used as "key starters" and getting far too many snaps, with far too little to show for it.

I'm not nearly as interested in the stats they have, nor those they sacrifice, as I am in the overall play of the unit: And every statistical barometer from those tracking our effectiveness against the run to those against the pass to those measuring our ability to put pressure on opposing QBs, indicates that these "role players" aren't producing (nor are the majority of their "starting" comrades in the trenches).

Likewise, what I empirically observe with my eyes every game, tells me that these guys are losing the battle at the point of attack, whether by being unable to hold their lanes, by being unable to either shed, nor occupy the requisite number of blockers needed to free up our LBs, by being stood up on downs where they need penetration, or by literally being blown off the ball when it's time to stiffen their backs against the run late in games.

This unit, whether observing the starters, or their role playing tandems, is increasingly injury prone, and increasingly past their prime in terms of age and production. Keep them on as role players, as rotational depth, as clubhouse leadership etc... but invest in some quality, 1st day draft picks along the line, so that we can fortify both our interior DL and our LDE spots against both the run and pass (against which they are currently equally ineffectual).
I like your football IQ

[RIDETHEWALRUS]

Yet you don't see anything wrong with our D-line. Amazing. :laugh:

Yet you don't see anything wrong with WLB. You know the position that Rocky couldn't take from highway 57 until the last week of the season.:laugh:

We have been going back and forth too much on this issue to try and take my statements out of context in a seperate thread. That's just cheap tricks.

I am a proponent of taking DL at #31 because the talent there is jsut as good as at #6. I'll take a 4 year starter at UT in Tim Crowder and Lance Briggs over combine phenoms like Carriker or Anderson any day of the week.

[KingGibbs]

Wow. I've enjoyed this thread and everyone has made valid points and not just you Art. :)

I've stated before that I was on the fence with the Briggs proposal and I still am for the most part and I think the reason is I want to see who we would choose at #31.

IMO I just don't see a DL in this draft worthy of the #6 pick. Why? Take a look at who people are suggesting we take at the #6 spot. You have people suggesting Okoye, Branch, Andersen, Gaines etc. When I see all of these differences of opinions what do I see? I see a lack of separation from one DL to the next. IMO, it's a pretty level playing field when it comes to the DL in this draft.

If we do consummate this trade it all hinges on what kind of production we get out of the #31 spot. There are plenty of DL worthy of this spot who could potentially become an impact player. Guys I can see making an impact and may still be available at #31 are DeMarcus Tyler and Anthony Spencer.

As much as I can be critical of the FO I really think (hope anyway) that they are doing there homework on this one and the addition of Briggs and a solid contributor at #31 would work for me. Trading down for multiple picks is too risky with this FO and maybe they just don't trust themselves enough (lord knows their recent history would suggest that) to be able to be successful in acquiring players that will contribute enough to warrant trading down for those picks.

BTW-One thought that has crossed my mind is that maybe the staff is planning on taking a look at moving Rocky to SS???? Just a thought. Please don't tell me he's not big enough and he certainly is athletic enough to man that spot.

Also, I think too many people undervalue Wynn's worth. He has been a solid and steady contributor and I don't think it's coincidence that our run defense had been stout until he was removed as the starter. In short he does the dirty work and does it well. :2cents:

[Geoff_K]

Hello, class valedictorian at Complete Dope University. We enjoyed your speech. Now, as you rush off to take your medicine and wipe the drool from your lips, I'll help others understand what you don't. Lance Briggs would exist in this trade. The concept might be that a 26-year-old, two-time Pro Bowler, one-time All Pro and one-time Pro Bowl alternate MIGHT, just MIGHT be worth 1000 draft value points, or, approximately the 16th pick of the draft.

This essentially means if you think the Skins will trade No. 6, get FULL value for it according to the draft value chart, WHILE ALSO getting Briggs, you should probably ring the bell, cause the fries are done baby. As it happens, the draft value chart is a touchy subject here because fans ignore it exists when they want to scream about favorable draft value chart trades we've made -- i.e. Jason Campbell.

But, yeah, if you'd like, I can probably get you the Skins draft value chart. Let me know.

when it starts near the top, I guess I cannot expect others to not do it too. /sighs

[LiveStrongSkins]

If the trade goes through we get two defensive additions. Say it with me, we get two defensive additions. Two is better than one the last time I checked. A probowl linebacker and a solid DT/DE at pick #31 will be the most likely scenario. How can anyone be mad at that?

[fpickering]

Hello, class valedictorian at Complete Dope University. We enjoyed your speech. Now, as you rush off to take your medicine and wipe the drool from your lips, I'll help others understand what you don't. Lance Briggs would exist in this trade. The concept might be that a 26-year-old, two-time Pro Bowler, one-time All Pro and one-time Pro Bowl alternate MIGHT, just MIGHT be worth 1000 draft value points, or, approximately the 16th pick of the draft.

This essentially means if you think the Skins will trade No. 6, get FULL value for it according to the draft value chart, WHILE ALSO getting Briggs, you should probably ring the bell, cause the fries are done baby. As it happens, the draft value chart is a touchy subject here because fans ignore it exists when they want to scream about favorable draft value chart trades we've made -- i.e. Jason Campbell.

But, yeah, if you'd like, I can probably get you the Skins draft value chart. Let me know.


This and the myriad of other personal attacks you levy are not necessary.

[RIDETHEWALRUS]

If the trade goes through we get two defensive additions. Say it with me, we get two defensive additions. Two is better than one the last time I checked. A probowl linebacker and a solid DT/DE at pick #31 will be the most likely scenario. How can anyone be mad at that?

Because they fail to pay attention. The average person screaming from the rafters against this trade could not tell you why Adams, Anderson, Carriker, Okoye, or Branch is supposedly better than Crowder, Moses, Johnson, Tyler, Alama-Francis, Abirimiri, etc. IMO the players at #31 this year are just as good as the "elite" prospects there at #6.