How the Lance Briggs deal started.

I guess Joe was into the deal. Although it did start last night in a bar. I'm guessing deals get done like this sometimes. I just don't understand why we are making his offer?

If it happens here one of Joe Gibbs first few lines at the press conference... " I really like to say when you have a chance to add a player of his claiber you do it."

I mean come on we don't need him right now there are other issues that they can address with this pick.

this is absolutely ridiculous. I hate Danielle Snyder

Nothing has been officially proposed yet so let's not get too crazy. I still think this deal is 100% BS.

I pray that you're right. But as much as Pastabelly dumps on us, he's usually pretty solid with the inside info.

Hopefully he's understating what we'd get in such a trade scenario. Maybe, just maybe, he's leaving out the part about us getting a 3rd round pick in addition.

Or best of all, he's just completely wrong about the whole thing.

Even if this deal happens I don't understand why people are getting so crazy about it. If we can still come out of the draft with a quality defensive lineman I think this is a win/win scenario for both teams.

Well while we're discussing the if's, just think what we could get in a trade package if Adrian Peterson falls to us at 6.

It's just a retarded deal. It doesn't fill a glaring need, and it buries one of our promising young prospects (Rocky) in the depth chart.

Normally I hate to cite PFT, but this actually makes sense with a nice dig on Pasta Belly:

BRIGGS-TO-'SKINS MAKES NO SENSE

Apart from the fact that Bears linebacker Lance Briggs became a star in a pure Tampa 2 scheme that the Redskins don't run, there's another reason why it makes no sense, in our view, for the 'Skins to add Briggs to the team.

With two big-money free agent linebackers -- Marcus Washington and London Fletcher-Baker -- already in the starting lineup, the 'Skins wouldn't be getting the best return on their investment in Washington, Fletcher-Baker, and Briggs.

Why? Because a defense has three linebackers on the field roughly half of the time.

In the nickel and dime defenses, linebackers are replaced by defensive backs. Teams use the nickel whenever the opponent brings in a third receiver. Typically, that happens in second and long or third and more than three or four yards.

At a time when the 'Skins are still thought to be interested in adding Dre' Bly to a corps of cornerbacks that includes Carlos Rogers and Fred Smoot, it's simply not a good investment of cap dollars to write a big bonus check to Briggs, unless the team is thinking about parting ways with Washington and his base salary of $4 million in 2007.

Meanwhile, ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli is once again creating the impression that he broke the story of a possible trade of Briggs to the 'Skins, even though Jay Glazer of FOXSports.com and Adam Schefter of NFL Network had the story well in advance.

(Free advice to Len: With the departure of Michael Irvin and the "reassignment" of Joe Theismann, the folks in Bristol are demonstrating a willingness to heed and to respond to accurate and reasonable external criticism of their employees.)

Even if this deal happens I don't understand why people are getting so crazy about it. If we can still come out of the draft with a quality defensive lineman I think this is a win/win scenario for both teams.The problem is just as you state it. It's now an "if" situation if this deal goes through instead of a "who".

Nothing has been officially proposed yet so let's not get too crazy. I still think this deal is 100% BS.

I hope you're right like you usually are. :)

Normally I hate to cite PFT, but this actually makes sense with a nice dig on Pasta Belly:

BRIGGS-TO-'SKINS MAKES NO SENSE

Apart from the fact that Bears linebacker Lance Briggs became a star in a pure Tampa 2 scheme that the Redskins don't run, there's another reason why it makes no sense, in our view, for the 'Skins to add Briggs to the team.

With two big-money free agent linebackers -- Marcus Washington and London Fletcher-Baker -- already in the starting lineup, the 'Skins wouldn't be getting the best return on their investment in Washington, Fletcher-Baker, and Briggs.

Why? Because a defense has three linebackers on the field roughly half of the time.

In the nickel and dime defenses, linebackers are replaced by defensive backs. Teams use the nickel whenever the opponent brings in a third receiver. Typically, that happens in second and long or third and more than three or four yards.

At a time when the 'Skins are still thought to be interested in adding Dre' Bly to a corps of cornerbacks that includes Carlos Rogers and Fred Smoot, it's simply not a good investment of cap dollars to write a big bonus check to Briggs, unless the team is thinking about parting ways with Washington and his base salary of $4 million in 2007.

Meanwhile, ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli is once again creating the impression that he broke the story of a possible trade of Briggs to the 'Skins, even though Jay Glazer of FOXSports.com and Adam Schefter of NFL Network had the story well in advance.

(Free advice to Len: With the departure of Michael Irvin and the "reassignment" of Joe Theismann, the folks in Bristol are demonstrating a willingness to heed and to respond to accurate and reasonable external criticism of their employees.)

LOL, at least they took a shot at the fat ass.

Even if this deal happens I don't understand why people are getting so crazy about it. If we can still come out of the draft with a quality defensive lineman I think this is a win/win scenario for both teams.

I think it's because some people don't know how to do anything but complain. It's like the folks who keep bitching about how we never re-sign our own guys in spite of all the re-signings we've completed this offseason. That mentality will only change when the team starts winning, if even then.

I think it's because some people don't know how to do anything but complain. It's like the folks who keep bitching about how we never re-sign our own guys in spite of all the re-signings we've completed this offseason. That mentality will only change when the team starts winning, if even then.So you would be happy with this deal and think it would make the team better?