Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack
Well as I've said here and here and probably other places my concern with the deal is a.) shouldn't we get more picks and b.) why did we trade up to get Rocky and then sign Fletch only to add another linebacker. Granted, we're talking Lance Briggs here but still
I don't have a problem with people opposing the trade. Like I said, I still lean against it. All I'm saying is, to Matty's question, I think a lot of people's reason for opposing the trade isn't "well what about Rocky" or "can we afford to pay Briggs, what does this mean for Coooley" or "is Briggs a system back" or anything like that, it's just "well, it's the Redskins so it must be a bad move." |
I don't think so. I've seen tons of posts in this thread and in the 200+ post one stating why this is a bad deal. There's tons of real reasons and tons of substantiation behind all of them.
In this case, this is no knee-jerk reaction. People are mainly bothered by the fact that we have glaring needs at D line, and this trade severely compromises our ability to satisfy that need.