[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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.