Day 3 of Briggs saga, JLC and Co. think the odd's are better than 50-50?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Ugh. I just don't like it. If the Bears or any other team were offering a defensive lineman on the level of Briggs, and we could get the 31st pick -- I'd jump all over it.

Yeah, like Rosenhaus' other Chicago client Tommie Harris

Gmanc and I went back and forth on this. I want that #37 pick from Chicago (used to be ours) along with Briggs and the #31, if we make the deal. Gmanc says we'd have to give up Rocky. I say LeMar and a mid-round pick in 2008.

But we'll just say Rocky here. So #6, Rocky to Chicago for Briggs, #31, and #37. Draft DT Justin Harrell at #31. Trade the #37 to the Jets for the #59 and the #63. Draft DE Quentin Moses and um...I don't know...DB Daymeion Hughes?

[That Guy]

i'd trade the #6 straight up for tommy harris :P

[Gmanc711]

Originally Posted by That Guy

i'd trade the #6 straight up for tommy harris :P

Honestly we might "lose" techincally with the deal according to the charts....but if we could get a 2-3rd round pick in the deal too, i'd pull the trigger on that too.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by GusFrerotte

Gibbs and the FO must not think our current crop of LB's is worth much. I can see trying to sign a couple veteran offensive linemen, we need depth at the very least, but LB was a solid position for us I thought. IF this story is true that the Bears want more out of us for Briggs, then I say we nix the deal. We can get a decent young LB with a upper middle pic like a 3rd rounder if we wanted to. All I hope is that these guys have some sort of plan layed out with the moves they are making and not doing things on the run like they seem to have been doing for a long time.

Captain Gus, based off last year, what would make you or Gibbs think that we are in good shape at LB?

Now with Fletcher signed, I agree with some optimism, but any evaluation of linebacker play from last year's game tape would only end up with a trash can full of vomit!

I agree with you on sweetening the deal. If they want Marshall, they can go F themselves. I wonder if they would do it for Montgomery instead of Golston?

[Alvin#40]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Captain Gus, based off last year, what would make you or Gibbs think that we are in good shape at LB?

Now with Fletcher signed, I agree with some optimism, but any evaluation of linebacker play from last year's game tape would only end up with a trash can full of vomit!

I agree with you on sweetening the deal. If they want Marshall, they can go F themselves. I wonder if they would do it for Montgomery instead of Golston?

Agree with the vomit. Briggs, Washington, Fletcher would make up for poor D-line play. Not totally but least our Lbs wont be pushed around by guards (like Marshall) anymore. Give them L.M. but throw in their 6th or something. Wheel and deal!!! Even without 6th, Marshall just be sitting unless dime package ANYWAY.

[offiss]

Just to show how stupid we are, we are the ones pushing for this deal, how about allowing Briggs to pigeon hole the Bears first to the point they are ready to make a better deal for us? If Gibbs and co. were playing texas hold'em thier hole cards would be dealt face up.

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Yeah, like Rosenhaus' other Chicago client Tommie Harris

Gmanc and I went back and forth on this. I want that #37 pick from Chicago (used to be ours) along with Briggs and the #31, if we make the deal. Gmanc says we'd have to give up Rocky. I say LeMar and a mid-round pick in 2008.

But we'll just say Rocky here. So #6, Rocky to Chicago for Briggs, #31, and #37. Draft DT Justin Harrell at #31. Trade the #37 to the Jets for the #59 and the #63. Draft DE Quentin Moses and um...I don't know...DB Daymeion Hughes?

Getting the #37 pick would change things substantially (of course it is just getting back what was once ours and once again making up for a past mistake rather than actually moving forward). In any case, that would change things, but I just don't see the Bears giving up that pick unless they have a similar disregard for their picks as the Redskins "FO" has for theirs.

P.S.

Being 50-50 actually does clear things up because it should be 0% chance. The Redskins having some things in place tentatively, waiting until draft day, seeing if they can deal down a few spots, get more picks and then (if they REALLY want Briggs) making the deal for like the 8th or 10th pick and Briggs. Complicated and maybe unfeasable, but this trade should not happen in the first place. Can anyone show me an instance of a team trading out of the top 10 all the way to #31? Is there any precedent here?

[EXoffender]

We should've considered Briggs before signing Fletcher. This team does stuff backwards. I manage my roster on Madden better than Gibbs and Co. does...

[skinsfan_nn]

Originally Posted by EXoffender

We should've considered Briggs before signing Fletcher. This team does stuff backwards. I manage my roster on Madden better than Gibbs and Co. does...

I think we needed FLETCH, clearly.
We would be just fine without BRIGGS. I think signing FLETCH was the first or at least one of the first moves we had to make, I think they got that right.
LB is way down on the wish list.