Da Bears want Marshall

[offiss]

Is there a possibility that we can throw Gibbs in with this trade?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by offiss

As I said earlier the Bears know we are dumb enough to give them even more so why bother with a no brainer of a sweetheart deal when we will give up even more. That's why they played in the SB last season and we are picking 6th, or should I say were!

If we really want out of the 6th we should start trading down we would winde up with a lot more than we are going to with Briggs, a couple of trade downs should net at least a 2 and a 3, then we can go get all that talent in the second and 3rd round Gibbs has been babbling about.

On a lesser note I believe our 52 million dollar back is now on equal time with his backup L. Betts according to Gibbs, but at least he will technically be the starter. Hurray!

Well, we certainly have proven to be horrible negotiators in the past.

In this case, we could have our hands tied. We've already come to an agreement with Briggs, so it may be very tough to get away from the deal now. However, we really don't have much more at all to give for Briggs.

I just hope we don't unload any 2008 picks and perpetuate the problem further. I guess when we fall in love with a player, anything can happen.

[GTripp0012]

I would have a ton of respect for the decision makers if Chicago asked for more and we told them to go shove it.

But like Offiss said, what are the chances of that?

[Gmanc711]

Originally Posted by offiss

Is there a possibility that we can throw Gibbs in with this trade?

Or anyone on this team associated with decison making!


This is all Brunells fault!

[JGisLordOfTheRings]

F Chicago and F Lance Briggs! That deal was ALREADY in thir favor....WTF ARE THEY THINKING????

"Oh, the deals already bad for us?"
"Yes, sir."
"Awww, **** it. Throw in a couple linebackers or something just to be nice. That'll do it."

[SmootSmack]

With the trade as it is we'd be getting more than some other recent teams that have gotten franchised players have gotten

[KLHJ2]

We are always on the short end of the stick on these damn trades. Lets keep what we got and move on.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

With the trade as it is we'd be getting more than some other recent teams that have gotten franchised players have gotten

I think finding a competant weak side LB is far harder than finding a strong side LB. It just seems that most LB problems stem from a weakness on the weakside since the responsibility is much more spread out over a larger area than the strong side. The WLB has to be really versatile, has to have the coverage skills to get into the curl zone of the split end, and has to be able to come up and make the solo tackle on a weak side run. So getting a guy like Briggs to fill the role helps.

But what happens on 3rd down? Do we pull a defensive tackle and play 3-3-5, and then use the 3-4 philosophy of always bringing four guys, but varying the blitzer? That might work, but we may have to get really creative to keep our best players on the field on third down?

This trade is not a great allocation of our resources, but it beats a trade up for CJ by that standard.

[RedskinPete]

Originally Posted by stu_nna

NFL network says that throwing an additional player like Marshall in would seal the deal, to complete the Lance Briggs trade. To me thats the deal breaker, check the link...NFL.com - NFL News

Its a deal breaker if they don't throw in a 3rd or 4th round pick even with out Marshall. With him its a 2nd and a lower one!

[GMScud]

We have the leverage!!! WTF!! No other teams seem to be too interested in Briggs, and if the Bears don't move him, he'll likely sit out 10 games! We should be dictating the terms, not letting them push us around! Oh man...

[KLHJ2]

F the whole trade alltogether

[vaoutlaws2006]

what source do you trust more espn or nfl network? I honestly dont think we need briggs but imagine starting these three backers...briggs, fletcher, and washington. But we always look good on paper...remember when it was...arrington, trottier, and armistead. It sure did look good on paper. I just dont know what the skins are thinking about they need to use the pick and pick the best player available. Briggs is unfortunately a cancer that we dont need. What happens in two years when he isnt happy with his contract? and whats with jemarcus russell coming to redskin park 4-10...are the skins also considering trading up? isnt russell projected as the first overall pick. I think the skins might be using some smoke and mirrors to fool some people on their intentions with the 6 pick and the briggs trade.

[skinsfan_nn]

No thanks! What we want and what we get are two different things!

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

This whole thread is based off of an article written by Pat Kerwin. He said the same thing yesterday in his monologue on Moving the Chains. This is not from the Bears folks, so quit getting all upset. I think we all need to relax until something is done.

There is a guy who is quoting some other guy on a Bears message board talking about Marcus Washington. Well I have to say Marcus isn't going anywhere, and as for Lamar Marshall the Bears have not asked for him Pat Kerwin did. As far as Marcus Washington he was mentioned by a FAN, so that definetaly not going to happen.

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

Arrington, Trotter, and Armstead can't compare with these three. We're talking about speed, good coverage skills, and tackling abilty. That is what we would have with Washington, Fletcher, and Briggs. Last year for Briggs he had 109 tackles and 2 picks. Fletcher had 104 and 4 picks.
Marcus Washington had 57 and no picks.

We would have the best trio of linebakers in the NFL. I'm not bringing up the past this year. I;'m sick of worrying about the old mistakes we made. I just want to win and these 3 would be our best option. Hell those two linebackers we may have on our team next year hade more picks than our corners did.