clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Briggs, Bad Move For Washington?

New, comments

I don't know the Washington Redskins well enough to know how much of this holds true and given the source who knows and I would be interested to hear Skin Patrol's take on this.  

PFT has this to say:

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.

In general it seems like a bad idea, just because you don't want to have so much money tied up in one position, which is why the Bears are good with Hunter Hillenmeyer as our third linebacker.  He is quality, but not going to kill us on a contract.