Bears To Counter Redskins

by Adam T on Mar 29, 2007 7:43 AM CDT in News

Though the Bears are thought to turn down the Redskins official offer of their #6 pick for our #31 and LB Lance Briggs, Angelo is working on a counter offer. The end is if the Bears trade Briggs, they want more.

General manager Jerry Angelo returned to Chicago from the league's annual meeting Wednesday night and is believed to be preparing a counteroffer to the Redskins' proposal of a swap of first-round draft picks that would move the Bears from No. 31 to No. 6. The Bears are thought to want a better package in exchange for a Pro Bowl linebacker that might include a combination of players or future draft picks.

The Bears also might shop the offer to other teams, although one sticking point will be the multi year contract -- which will average $7.5 million per year and include a $20 million signing bonus -- that the Redskins reportedly are ready to give Briggs.

I think my position is quite clear. I don't care about the draft value of the two picks, if somebody wants Briggs they need to give up something be it players or extra picks.

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Not enough

The Skins initial proposal just wasn't very good. The value is basically a mid first round pick. As you've said many times, as a franchise player Briggs is worth 2 first rounders.

Now, obviously the Skins won't offer that because they could just sign him in that case.. However, a swap of firsts, a second or third next year(because they have none this year and a player? That starts to approach some real value.

Frankly, if I was the Bears I might even counter with a straight up Briggs for #6 swap. Even Briggs and late first day or early second day pick...

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Mar 29, 2007 9:36 AM CDT reply actions

I agree

I think that offer was pretty weak. We got hosed on the Thomas Jones trade and I would hate to see the same thing happen again. If they throw in a first day pick next year, then we have something.

GO BEARS!!!!!

by McRipper on Mar 29, 2007 10:08 AM CDT up reply actions

Hosed?

I don't really think so. The value you got was pretty much the going rate for a good back.

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Mar 29, 2007 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions

Briggs

isn't "worth" 2 first round picks. He's worth whatever the market will offer the Bears in trade for him.

The two first round picks is there to make the franchise cap worth something to the team, otherwise teams could make an offer to every franchised player, put a poison pill in the offer sheet, and the franchise tag would become moot. No team has ever gotten back two first rounders as compensation, its always less.

by tomas21 on Mar 29, 2007 4:47 PM CDT up reply actions

the #6 pick doesn't fit our needs

if washington had a lower 1st round pick, then we could say we want that plus next years #1 or #2. the problem w/ #6 (besides the fact that there probably isn't someone there who we really want or need) is that it is a lot of guaranteed money. if we have to shell that out, then we might as well pay briggs. unless you need a top QB, OL, or DE/DT, high 1st round picks aren't worth it, just because they make an insane amount of money.

by guy incognito on Mar 29, 2007 10:00 AM CDT reply actions

Best Available

I hear alot of people saying that the Bears don't want the 6th pick because they don't have any real needs. Well why not just take the best available player. If we had the 6th pick and Brady Quinn was there, I think we would look pretty foolish if we don't draft him and Grossman gets injured or has a similar year next year like this past year. I don't think the Bears will stay as committed to Grossman if that were the case and we would have Quinn ready to come in. Griese isn't the answer and Orton is a career back up.

GO BEARS!!!!!

by McRipper on Mar 29, 2007 10:14 AM CDT reply actions

Agreed

I think the argument that the Bears do not need a pick as high as 6 is ludicrous, and should not be made by anyone without the cheap, penny-pinching surname of McCaskey. No real needs? Lets look...

QB- Who knows what we have in Grossman, and while he hasn't taken an NFL snap, I'm sure a lot of people could easily make the case that Brady Quinn in his second or third year will be better than what we have already seen of Grossman (who by the way, I don't hate).

WR - So help me God if Calvin Johnson somehow drop to 6 on draft day and the 'Skins are on the clock. The trade would be worth the chance of this happening alone

TE- Its a need certainly, although Im not sure there are any TEs in the draft that are worth the risk

OL - Remember how our O-Line is 900 years old?

DE - Not necessarily a pressing need now, but Ogun isn't getting any younger and rotating a Gaines Adams in would certainly save some tread on his tires (for what its worth, I would not go in this direction in the draft).

LB - Yeah that guy, Briggs, that everyone hates now, he was pretty good back in the day. Now, whether you like or not, he's gone, and I'm not entirely sure that Jeremy Cain or Rod Wilson or Jamar Williams could collectively attain a Briggsian number of tackles.

S - Mike Brown will be playing with an IV in this year and well, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R211e6JdVew

I'm not gonna cry my eyes out about a team who is UNDER THE CAP that complains about having the opportunity to pick one of the top 6 prospects in the country. No team was ever criticized for being "too deep"

by SouthernSlam on Mar 29, 2007 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions

I won't call it a case of not needing the #6

but why not pay Briggs if you are going to go and pay a rookie twice as much.

Agreed on WR, if we missed out chance at Johnson I would be steamed.

I think JA is too good at finding defensive steals in the draft to use the #6 on it. We have Mark Anderson coming off the bench. He usually plays Brown's side, I wonder if he can play the other.

by Adam T on Mar 29, 2007 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions

Mark Anderson

I sure hope he can rush from the other end spot.
Ogunleye cannot anymore. Using a high pick for an end isn't a bad idea at all. I don't see Wale being a Bear this year.
Even if Anderson can scoot over the depth would be a good thing.

hit him in his earhole

by draftday on Mar 29, 2007 5:26 PM CDT up reply actions

they should

ask for Rocky McIntosh in addition to swapping picks, imo.

McIntosh was the skins second round pick from last year, an athletic weak-side backer from Miami that plays the same position as Briggs. If they had Briggs, Rocky would be somewhat expendable, and would give the Bears a replacement without having to reach in the draft.

by tomas21 on Mar 29, 2007 4:44 PM CDT reply actions

Quinn...

To me Quinn is way to similar to Joey Harrington. He gets the pub because he's a ND QB. Sorry, but he ain't Montana. I think other GMs see this in him. Yes, he knows how to handle the media spotlight, but he needs to fall to a team that has its pieces in the right places for him to succeed.

In addition. The Bears need OL help bad. Yes, the line is decent, but man they're getting old. Athletic fronts give them fits. I think they will get at least 3 OL in this year's draft.

by kingj41 on Mar 29, 2007 4:54 PM CDT reply actions

just like every other rookie qb

"he needs to fall to a team that has its pieces in the right places for him to succeed."

ben rothlisberger anyone?

by mike b on Mar 29, 2007 7:23 PM CDT up reply actions

He's not even on Ben's level

If Brady Quinn is forced to make plays, he doesn't. If he couldn't do it in college, I highly doubt he can do it in the NFL.
By pieces, I meant an offense where he's not asked to do everything, like a David Carr. Hell, I'd rather have Carr on my team than Quinn. I only hope that Quinn proves me wrong because I'd love for the quality of the game to improve with more teams having a starting QB worthy of starting for an NFL team.

by kingj41 on Mar 30, 2007 8:47 AM CDT up reply actions